Reorganize sections

dosp-survey.ltx

@@ -86,43 +86,7 @@ eventually decide to do so.  These aren't technically in scope, but we
 should give some examples somewhere --- maybe in a footnote or
 appendix --- just to make it clear that it's something that happens.
 
-\numberedsection{Motivations}\label{motivations}
-
-DOSP is usually described as protecting commercial interests of a software
-developer by maintaining a window of time during which some users might be
-incentivized to pay for licenses that they might not need if the software
-were released as open source.
-
-% Fit into discussions about incentive/funding models
-
-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, 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}
-
-\subsection{Early History}
+\numberedsection{Early History}
 
 For many years, Aladdin GhostScript implemented a DOSP policy whereby
 new versions were published under a proprietary license, and then regularly
@@ -160,6 +124,43 @@ for licenses.
 % https://tinf2.vub.ac.be/~dvermeir/manual/KDE20Development-html/ch19lev1sec4.html
 % and more
 
+\numberedsection{Scheduled Relicensing}\label{scheduled}
+
+\subsection{Motivations}\label{motivations}
+
+DOSP is usually described as protecting commercial interests of a software
+developer by maintaining a window of time during which some users might be
+incentivized to pay for licenses that they might not need if the software
+were released as open source.
+
+% Fit into discussions about incentive/funding models
+
+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, 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?
+
+
 \subsection{Bounty and Sponsorship Delays}\label{bounty}
 
 Another model is making individual software features or enhancements