From cd4c56472724222b94b3b92795851ed752f93df7 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Seth Schoen <schoen@loyalty.org>
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2023 21:32:57 -0800
Subject: [PATCH] Add more material about one-off delays (also comments about
 AUGs)

---
 dosp-survey.ltx | 26 ++++++++++++++++++++++----
 1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/dosp-survey.ltx b/dosp-survey.ltx
index 2877ae6..c1072c7 100644
--- a/dosp-survey.ltx
+++ b/dosp-survey.ltx
@@ -75,6 +75,8 @@ beginnings through today, shows some clear trends:
     "as soon as we find the right non-profit home for it", etc.
     Probably includes bounty mechanisms, but only if these were
     intended --- that is, not ``buy-outs".
+\emph{James thinks this is also not really DOSP in the same sense,
+although it's a category that quite a few people wrote in about.}
 
 \end{itemize}
 
@@ -97,10 +99,26 @@ We've also seen one-time delays for new projects whose developers state
 a concrete intention to convert those projects to an open source license.
 They may have non-economic reasons for those delays, such as shame about
 poor code quality, concern about security issues that may be apparent in
-unaudited source code, a need to procure permissions from other copyright
-holders, a desire to establish a community or governance structure, or
-a plan to incorporate a legal entity.
-
+unaudited source code, initial uncertainty about which license to choose,
+a need to procure permissions from other copyright holders, a desire to
+establish a community or governance structure, or a plan to incorporate
+a legal entity. They may initially publish source code with no license
+at all (which is not considered open source, because it does not grant
+users rights to modify and redistribute the code), or they may publish
+a binary-only demo version or versions. Although these scenarios involve
+an intent to publish something as open source in the future, they are
+also rather different from the cases we focus on here, for example
+with regard to whether the delay is \emph{desired} by the authors,
+whether it's \emph{predictable} to users, and whether it's expected to
+\emph{recur}.
+
+% The BUSL AUGs also seem to show (especially among database developers?)
+% a desire to prohibit direct competition with the original developer's
+% own business. A significant number of BUSL AUGs explicitly allow
+% commercial production use if it doesn't compete commercially with the
+% original developer. Are there particular stories about how this has
+% happened? Has it happened repeatedly? Is it something investors are
+% especially concerned about?
 
 \numberedsection{Scheduled Relicensing}\label{scheduled}
 
-- 
GitLab