Skip to content
Snippets Groups Projects

Compare revisions

Changes are shown as if the source revision was being merged into the target revision. Learn more about comparing revisions.

Source

Select target project
No results found

Target

Select target project
  • ots/dosp-research
  • gedankenstuecke/dosp-research
  • msw/dosp-research
  • chadwhitacre/dosp-research
4 results
Show changes
Commits on Source (152)
52 additional commits have been omitted to prevent performance issues.
Expand all Hide whitespace changes
Inline Side-by-side
.gitignore 0 → 100644
View file @ d50531bd
*.aux
*.fdb_latexmk
*.fls
*.knowngood
*.log
*.out
*.pdf
*.tex
*.toc
*.draft.ltx
*.rej
noun_Book_861143.svg
noun_Book_861143_ltgreen.svg
noun_Email_3027864.svg
noun_Email_3027864_ltgreen.svg
noun_Key_1785639.svg
noun_Key_1785639_crop.svg
noun_Key_1785639_ltgreen.svg
noun_Telephone_2591756.svg
noun_Telephone_2591756_ltgreen.svg
svg-inkscape
doc/kde
Makefile 0 → 100644
View file @ d50531bd
#!/bin/sh
### The upstream master version of this Makefile lives here:
###
### https://github.com/OpenTechStrategies/ots-doctools/blob/master/ext-Makefile
###
### A copy of this Makefile will often be included in a document
### source tree, because for people who build documents, it's very
### convenient to just run 'make' or 'make some_document_name.pdf' and
### have the desired thing happen. This Makefile then just forwards
### all the action to the much more sophisticated Makefile found at
### ${OTS_DOCTOOLS_DIR}/Makefile. Therefore, please try not to make
### changes here; instead, put any improvements in the other Makefile.
.PHONY: default check
# The order of the rules below is important; change only with care.
default: check
@make -s -f ${OTS_DOCTOOLS_DIR}/Makefile
%: check
@make -s -f ${OTS_DOCTOOLS_DIR}/Makefile $@
check:
@if [ "${OTS_DOCTOOLS_DIR}X" = "X" ]; then \
echo ""; \
echo "ERROR: Your OTS_DOCTOOLS_DIR env var is not set up yet."; \
echo " Please see this repository for instructions:"; \
echo " https://github.com/OpenTechStrategies/ots-doctools."; \
echo ""; \
exit 1; \
fi
README.md
View file @ d50531bd
Research on *delayed open source publication* (DOSP): the practice of
publishing a software release under a proprietary license, then later
publishing that release's source code under an open source license.
While delayed open source publication been somewhat rare, there are
some examples of it across the history of open source -- in fact, some
of the examples (e.g., Aladdin Ghostscript) predate the coining of the
term "open source". To the best of our knowledge, when software
authors have done this it has usually been in a fairly predictable
way. For example, when release N goes out under a proprietary
license, release N-1 is then (re)published under an open source
license.
This repository is a collection of research, and eventually a
whitepaper, about various examples of DOSP and show how they are alike
or different. We will also analyze the effects (if any) of this
practice generally on open source as a field. Our purpose is to
provide accurate historical description and objective analysis; our
work here represents no position on the desirability or undesirability
of delayed open source publication.
This research is supported by the [Open Source Initiative
(OSI)](https://opensource.org/).
## Terminology
We are not necessarily settled on the term "delayed open source
publication". If you can suggest a better term for the phenomenon,
please let us know.
## Contributing
This repository is a collection of research, and a resultant
[whitepaper](https://opensource.org/delayed-open-source-publication),
about *delayed open source publication* (DOSP): the practice of
publishing a software release under a proprietary license initially,
then later publishing that release's source code under an open source
license. (This is often, but not always, done in a predictable
fashion: e.g., when release N goes out under a proprietary license,
release N-1 is then (re)published under an open source license.)
There are examples of DOSP across the history of open source -- in
fact, some of the examples (e.g., Aladdin Ghostscript) predate the
coining of the term "open source". We looked at various instances of
DOSP and examined how they are alike or different. We also analyzed
the effects (if any) of DOSP on open source as a field. Our purpose
was to provide accurate historical description and objective analysis;
our work here represents no position on the desirability or
undesirability of delayed open source publication.
This research was supported by the [Open Source Initiative
(OSI)](https://opensource.org/). The report is now completed and
published at
[opensource.org/delayed-open-source-publication](https://opensource.org/delayed-open-source-publication).
## Contacting us
You can email us at `dosp-research {_AT_} opensource.org` or [file a
ticket](https://code.librehq.com/ots/dosp-research/-/issues/new) to
contact us.
contact us. While we occasionally indulge in light maintenance and
error correction in the LaTeX source, that's infrequent and done
entirely at our discretion. We may prepare an updated second edition
some day; if you're interested in being involved in that, please let
us know.
To build the whitepaper from LaTeX source, you will need to use
[OTS DocTools](https://code.librehq.com/ots/ots-doctools).
## Building the whitepaper PDF from LaTeX source
Just kidding -- the whitepaper doesn't exist yet. Instead, we have
this free-form [notes file](notes.md). For now, that's the right
landing place for contributions.
To build the whitepaper from LaTeX source, use [OTS
DocTools](https://code.librehq.com/ots/ots-doctools).
bin/dosh 0 → 100755
View file @ d50531bd
#!/usr/bin/env bash
# Downloader for agreement between Troll Tech and KDE Free Qt Foundation.
#
# KDE presents the agreement as a series of PNG files on their site,
# which is less convenient than assembling that into a PDF. But we
# don't have permission to distribute an assembled PDF, so instead we
# have this script, which lets a user take the PNG files and make
# their own PDF.
SCRIPTNAME=dosh
BASEDIR=$( cd -- "$( dirname -- "${BASH_SOURCE[0]}" )" &> /dev/null && pwd )/..
# Call the upstream dosh
watch(){ ${OTS_DOCTOOLS_DIR}/dosh ${FUNCNAME[0]} "$@"; }
verify_pdf_links(){ ${OTS_DOCTOOLS_DIR}/dosh ${FUNCNAME[0]} "$@"; }
_dload(){
if [ -f "$2" ]; then
return
fi
wget -O $2 $1
}
docs_kde() {
mkdir -p $BASEDIR/doc/kde/.cache
cd $BASEDIR/doc/kde/.cache
# Don't download if it already exists
if [ -f ../kdefreeqt.pdf ]; then
return
fi
_dload https://kde.org/community/whatiskde/images/kdefreeqt0.png kdefreeqt0.png
_dload https://kde.org/community/whatiskde/images/kdefreeqt1.png kdefreeqt1.png
_dload https://kde.org/community/whatiskde/images/kdefreeqt2.png kdefreeqt2.png
_dload https://kde.org/community/whatiskde/images/kdefreeqt3.png kdefreeqt3.png
_dload https://kde.org/community/whatiskde/images/kdefreeqt4.png kdefreeqt4.png
_dload https://kde.org/community/whatiskde/images/kdefreeqt5.png kdefreeqt5.png
_dload https://kde.org/community/whatiskde/images/kdefreeqt6.png kdefreeqt6.png
_dload https://kde.org/community/whatiskde/images/kdefreeqt7.png kdefreeqt7.png
convert kdefreeqt*.png ../kdefreeqt.pdf
}
docs() {
docs_kde
}
"$@" # <- execute the task
[ "$#" -gt 0 ] || printf "Usage:\n\t./${SCRIPTNAME} %s\n" "($(compgen -A function | grep '^[^_]' | paste -sd '|' -))"
doc/Makefile 0 → 100644
View file @ d50531bd
all:
@../bin/dosh docs
clean-cache:
@echo rm -rf kde/.cache
clean: clean-cache
rm -rf kde/kdefreeqt.pdf
dosp-survey.ltx 0 → 100644
View file @ d50531bd
This diff is collapsed.
notes.md
View file @ d50531bd
......@@ -2,128 +2,116 @@ This file contains free-form notes. Anyone working on this project,
please feel free to reformat this (including to something other than
Markdown) if you want.
# Some additional license search methods
Databases licensed under BUSL:
https://dbdb.io/browse?license=business-source-license&q=
Elastic License v2 - has hosting noncompete clause but no conversion to FOSS
We can also do a search for particular SPDX values, like "BUSL" or "BUSL-1.1", in a SPDX line -- probably on GitHub!
# Examples
Note that some of these examples are still just pointers that will
need followup.
* The license now named the "Bootstrap Open Source License" (BOSL) was
formerly known as the "Transitive Grace Period Public Licence"
(TGPPL).
* Stuff about TGGPL:
The 2020 blog post [Introducing BOSL, a radically new type of
open-source
license](https://electriccoin.co/blog/introducing-tgppl-a-radically-new-type-of-open-source-license/)
discusses the license and gives some examples of its use.
discusses BOSL license and gives some examples of its use.
An earlier (2010) writeup about TGPPL from Ted T'so is
[The Transitive Grace Period Public Licence: good ideas come
around…](https://thunk.org/tytso/blog/2010/01/20/the-transitive-grace-period-public-licence-good-ideas-come-around/).
[Tahoe-LAFS](https://github.com/tahoe-lafs/tahoe-lafs) seems to have
a somewhat complicated (though still open source) licensing
situation, but it appears to be also published under the TGPPL?
And Zooko might be using BOSL or TGPPL for other things as well.
(See also https://github.com/zooko/tgppl -- note that Richard
Fontana is in the commit history there.)
* Aladdin Ghostscript
* ONE-OFF [Atom (text editor)](https://atom-editor.cc/blog/2014/05/06/atom-is-now-open-source/)
* Sleepycat and BerkeleyDB?
(suggested by @Zaeraxa in reply to https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37745772)
* [Sentry](https://github.com/getsentry/sentry/blob/master/LICENSE)
(Business Source License (BUSL)).
Probably not DOSP: Apparently had no license at all prior to this.
* Codecov (also from Sentry) is also BUSL.
* NOT DOSP BerkeleyDB and Sleepycat?
See https://blog.sentry.io/lets-talk-about-open-source/.
Probably not DOSP: simultaneous dual license.
* The post [Why Open Source
Matters](https://redmonk.com/sogrady/2023/08/03/why-opensource-matters/)
from RedMonk (Aug 2023) points to some other examples. (Also, it's
a really good post, in Karl's opinion, not that anyone asked him,
but hey, if you're editing the notes file then you get to insert
your opinions.)
* Hashicorp and BUSL
- https://www.hashicorp.com/license-faq#Why-is-HashiCorp-making-this-change
- https://www.hashicorp.com/blog/hashicorp-adopts-business-source-license
* Child Mind Institute's _MindLogger_
- uses its self-rolled _"Delayed Open Source Attribution License"_
- [license file on GH](https://github.com/ChildMindInstitute/mindlogger-applet-builder/blob/master/LICENSE.md)
* Akka (BUSL) [license FAQ](https://www.lightbend.com/akka/license-faq)
* FreeBSD netgraph
* CockroachDB (BUSL) [licensing FAQs](https://www.cockroachlabs.com/docs/stable/licensing-faqs)
Have not found any reference to licensing so far.
* [Zed](https://zed.dev/blog/open-sourcing-zed-on-zed)
* ONE-OFF [Ghostty](https://mitchellh.com/ghostty)
(suggested by @Zaeraxa in reply to https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37745772)
* [Ghostty](https://mitchellh.com/ghostty)
(suggested by @Zaeraxa in reply to https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37745772)
"A private project. I plan to open source it one day"
* [Atom (text editor)](https://atom-editor.cc/blog/2014/05/06/atom-is-now-open-source/)
* ONE-OFF Modular/Mojo (a highly-anticipated project from Chris Lattner
(creator of LLVM, Swift, and XLA/TensorFlow).
(suggested by @Zaeraxa in reply to https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37745772)
Possibly an example based on code quality and similar concerns,
but no fixed schedule: https://docs.modular.com/mojo/faq.html#open-source
* FreeBSD netgraph
* GitLab
* MariaDB
The situation with GitLab is interesting. They make some fairly
specific [public
commitments](https://handbook.gitlab.com/handbook/company/stewardship/#promises)
that are somewhat DOSP-adjacent but are not themselves DOSP
promises. They also say they [default to moving features
"down"ward](https://about.gitlab.com/company/pricing/#default-to-move-features-down),
which in their nomenclature means toward the FOSS product; while
that's not a binding commitment, they do seem in practice to be
sticking to it.
* MkDocs
Overall, there does not appear to be an true DOSP activity here, but
their way of operating probably warrants mention in the Appendix, as
people interested in DOSP would also want to know about this.
* "northroadgeo" projects [delayed open source mechanism not immediately clear?](https://north-road.com/#)
* UNCLEAR MkDocs
@jjgreen followed up in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37745772
to say: "North Road's SLYR (ESRI to QGIS Compatibility Suite) does
that (and rather good code it is too). https://north-road.com/slyr/ .
I see North Road is actually on your list, but eventual openness not
obvious. I think that's clear for SLYR at least."
I haven't found any delayed licensing information.
edit: I see North Road is actually on your list, but eventual openness not obvious. I think that's clear for SLYR at least
* Android (Google's eventual publication of changes to AOSP)
* Onivim 2 (was this unplanned?) [issue](https://github.com/onivim/oni2/issues/3771)
see also https://v2.onivim.io/early-access-portal and
https://github.com/onivim/oni2/issues/3811#issuecomment-910306404 for additional
history
If Google has typically been pretty regular about releasing stuff to
Android Open Source Project, even if they haven't formally committed
to that regularity, then that would be a kind of de facto DOSP.
(Question: do they preserve the commit metadata for commits
originally made in the private repository, so that when those
commits are published, the exact delay between the creation of the
commit and its becoming public can be seen? Karl guesses that they
do preserve all the metadata, but we should check.)
* OPSI ["co-funding"](https://www.opsi.org/de/dokumentation/opsi-lizenz-und-copyright https://forum.opsi.org/viewtopic.php?t=1193)
Cf. the situation with video game development, as Seth noted.
* [OTRS](https://www.znuny.org/en/blog/why) (open source -> delayed ->
proprietary), but one person said that the announced delayed open release
never actually happened.
* Pixelfed ["will be open sourced when we reach v1"](https://pixelfed.org/mobile-apps)
* [PKMN Classic Framework](https://github.com/mm201/pkmn-classic-framework)
(a reverse-engineered third-party Pokémon game server?) has a conditional
relicensing if the developer's official server instance goes offline in
the future
* ONE-OFF Pixelfed ["will be open sourced when we reach v1"](https://pixelfed.org/mobile-apps)
* Qt (officially delayed releases in the past??)
* Qt (officially delayed releases in the past from Trolltech?)
* The post [GPL Time-bomb an interesting approach to #FOSS
licensing](https://boyter.org/2016/08/gpl-time-bomb-interesting-approach-foss-licensing/)
by Ben Boyter mentions "searchcode" server being under an
"eventually open" license.
* UNCLEAR [Zed](https://zed.dev/blog/open-sourcing-zed-on-zed)
* Old games and libraries from [id Software](https://github.com/id-Software),
but was this planned or announced?
# Not software
(suggested by @Zaeraxa in reply to https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37745772)
* Rockefeller University Press Journal of Cell Biology has a delayed
open access policy with delayed relicensing of academic journal articles
(although the end license is a noncommercial Creative Commons license
so it would not be considered open source)
* INAPPLICABLE Hudson->Jenkins
* Maybe there are other examples of delayed open access in journals with
formal relicensing that would be considered fully open source (if the
articles were software)?
Alex Scammon mentioned the Hudson->Jenkins transition to Karl. But
on looking more closely into [the
history](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jenkins_(software)), it looks
like this was not about licensing, but rather about community
influence vs corporate (Oracle) influence on shared project
decisions. ([This
article](https://www.infoworld.com/article/2624986/oracle-s-open-source-missteps-continue-with-hudson-project.html)
seems to give a good overview of what happened.)
# An annoying nomenclature problem
......@@ -160,6 +148,23 @@ suggesting some of these cases (which can be fairly famous, like Netscape
Navigator!), but I think these should be thought of as more of a one-time
"change" than a "delay".
# Enforceability
The Creative Commons review seems to have been concerned that springing
licenses can have enforceability problems. For their older Founders
Copyright project, they actually used a copyright assignment to the
Creative Commons nonprofit rather than (as they usually suggest for
public licensing of creative works) a unilateral license document.
(Was that because of concerns that copyright can't necessarily be
abandoned under U.S. law, or because of concerns that a licensor or the
licensor's heirs could withdraw or revoke the license if it were given
unilaterally with a delay?)
It might be helpful to understand how serious the enforceability concerns
are, although it doesn't seem that they've ever been tested in court, so
it may be hard to say anything definitive.
# Threads where we have posted
Look in the follow-ups in these threads (and subthreads thereof) for
......@@ -169,26 +174,15 @@ more examples. Please add other threads here too.
* https://twitter.com/kfogel/status/1699104095976423795
* https://chat.opentechstrategies.com/#narrow/stream/2-general/topic/DOSP/near/172793
* https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37745772
* http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss\_lists.opensource.org/2023-October/thread.html#22130
# Resources to check
* Free Software Business (fsb) mailing list archives at https://web.archive.org/web/20210000000000\*/http://www.crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi/0/
# More people to contact as we're gathering examples
If your name should be on the list below but isn't, please [let us
know](https://code.librehq.com/ots/dosp-research/-/issues/new)!
* Deb Bryant
* Danese Cooper
* Heather Meeker
* Abby Kearns
* Sam Ramji
* Your Name Here...
# Sources / Acknowledgements
* Simon Phipps
* Stefano Maffulli
* Nick Vidal
* Bastian Greshake Tzovaras
* The post [Why Open Source
Matters](https://redmonk.com/sogrady/2023/08/03/why-opensource-matters/)
from RedMonk (Aug 2023) points to some other examples. (Also, it's
a really good post, in Karl's opinion, not that anyone asked him,
but hey, if you're editing the notes file then you get to insert
your opinions.)
parkinglot.ltx 0 → 100644
View file @ d50531bd
\numberedsection{Enforceability}\label{enforce}
Delayed open source licensing is less explored than immediate open source
licensing, and some observers have expressed concerns about its legal
enforceability. For example, if an author died before the announced license
transition date, would the author's heirs be required to honor the license
transition, or could they potentially cancel or withdraw it? What if a
company were acquired by a new owner which wanted to retroactively change
its licensing structure?
% XXX We obviously don't know yet because ...
The Creative Commons research on springing licenses expressed some concerns
about their enforceability. The Creative Commons organization itself
previously implemented a delayed licensing mechanism called Founders
Copyright; unlike other Creative Commons licenses, the Founders Copyright
involves a copyright assignment to the Creative Commons nonprofit
organization itself. The organization then commits to grant the original
author an exclusive license to the for the announced delay period, and
to license the work to the public afterward. It appears that this copyright
assignment mechanism was intended to minimize uncertainty about the
extent to which authors could bind themselves (or their successors) to
future licensing intentions, although it required direct involvement by
the nonprofit as copyright holder and licensor, a role it had otherwise
not seen fit to take on.
Kyle E. Mitchell distinguishes ``a present grant of a license" (with a
specified future start date) from ``a contractual promise to grant the
license later" and advocates using the former, although he does not
imply that the latter is invalid or unenforceable. Mitchell's concerns
focus on clarity and persistent documentation of specific license
grants to specific code and project versions.
taxonomy.md 0 → 100644
View file @ d50531bd
# Other terminology
Lawrence Rosen used the term "eventual source" and says that L. Peter Deutsch
used "eventual licensing" in connection with Ghostscript.
Creative Commons referred to "springing licenses" ("a legal mechanism for
granting a license that automatically springs into life at a future date").
A concrete example which CC proposed (but no longer suggests or operates)
is the "Founders' Copyright", which attempted to make copyrighted works
functionally public domain following a period of 14 or 28 years after
initial publication, inspired by provisions of 1790 U.S. copyright
legislation.
# Things that are DOSP
* Springing licenses that automatically convert after a particular delay (but note that these can convert from proprietary to open source, like BUSL, or from one open source license to another, like BOSL)
* A promise to (explicitly or manually) relicense older versions on a predictable schedule, when this promise is made and complied with
# Things that are adjacent to DOSP
* Bounty and buy-out mechanisms
Many people have proposed bounty mechanisms, or investment structures like
assurance contracts, which would allow a proprietary codebase to be "bought
out" by a community of prospective users (or philanthropists). In these
scenarios, developers would typically receive a large one-time payment in
exchange for switching an existing codebase from a proprietary to an
open-source licensing model. There has been considerable theoretical
interest in structures and mechanisms for funding public goods, several
of which assume that creative work will be proprietary by default, either
initially or if a public funding attempt fails.
[note about Blender story]
Buy-out mechanisms are potentially adjacent to DOSP when the public knows
ahead of time that there is a specific path available to convert
particular software's licensing.
* Ted Ts'o's TPL
In 2003, Ted Ts'o proposed a license which lets recipients redistribute
derived works under BSD-like terms for a specified period of time, and
which then later automatically imposes a GPL-like obligation on them
after a delay. He suggests that this is a compromise between benefits
of permissive and reciprocal licensing models. This is framed as allowing
downstream developers (not the original licensor) to temporarily, but not
permanently, publish their modified versions under proprietary licensing
terms.
This seems to be the same concept as the Transitive Grace Period Public
License (TGPPL), which (for example in
https://tahoe-lafs.org/~zooko/tgppl.pdf) was described as a time-based
compromise between GPL and BSD licensing models. TGPPL later became
the Bootstrap Open Source License (BOSL).
It's important to note that this is focused on temporarily granting
(immediate) recipients of code rights intermediate between those of BSD
and GPL models, as distinct from BUSL, which temporarily grants everyone
reduced rights relative to open sources. The TPL, TGPPL, and BOSL models
focus on economic incentives of downstream software development using
a code base, while the BUSL focuses on economic incentives of the upstream
developer itself.
(As a result, BOSL claims to already be an open source license -- as
recipients of the original code already receive full rights that comply
with the Open Source Definition -- while BUSL does not claim to be an
open source license.)
* Springing licenses that trigger in some way other than a fixed time delay
We have at least one example of an anti-abandonware license that states
that the license will convert to a specified open source liense under
conditions indicating that the upstream developer has ceased development
or has ceased operating.
* An informal habit of releasing older software as open source after its
presumed period of commercial viability
This is seen with id Games and some other game developers, as well as
historic versions of some major proprietary operating systems. This may
be habitual on the developers' part or a response to outside community
requests, but it is not concretely pre-planned or pre-announced, and
there is no way for the public to rely on it or guarantee that a particular
organization's relicensing practice will continue.
See also
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_commercial_video_games_with_later_released_source_code
(collecting examples of this practice); as noted there, the work as
whole is often not actually relicensed as open source (as "artwork and
data are often released under a different license than the source code").
* Initial proprietary publication for mainly non-economic reasons, with an open-ended pledge to adopt an open source license in the future
Several projects have been published initially under a proprietary license
for reasons such as embarrassment over code quality, doubts about code
security, or a desire to wait until a governance or funding structure has
been selected and implemented. Their developers have stated unequivocally
that they prefer and intend to eventually make the projects open source,
but this statement may not offer any concrete schedule or conditions,
and is presumably not enforceable.
# Things that are akin to DOSP in other fields or contexts
* Springing licenses by academic journals
Some academic journal publishers are applying springing licenses which
permit (at least) gratis public access to the full text of articles after a
fixed delay. The delay is stated to protect the commercial interest of the
publisher by incentivizing organizations to pay for journal subscriptions.
The end license terms are not always akin to open source licenses, as
examples include CC-BY-NC and CC-BY-NC-ND.
The delay in this case is pre-announced and is apparently intended to be
legally binding, and may often form a part of the contract between the
publisher and the authors, based on the presumption that academic authors
prefer to allow less-restrictive access to their work.
* Government investments with time-limited exclusivity
# Other things that remind people of DOSP
* One-off decisions to relicense a proprietary project
Many of these have become very famous, but since there was no explicit
prior intention to make them open source, they don't really fit into
the DOSP concept.
work.md 0 → 100644
View file @ d50531bd
# 2023-11-07:
* (James+Karl) High-level organizing and writing in the report.
* (Seth) Did rate of outside contribution change after BUSL
relicensing of Terraform, and maybe same for some other project that
either didn't have a fork or that had a not-conspicuously-successful
fork. Not sure which project that latter would be, but it would be
great if we could identify one for comparison, since the Terraform
fork has so conspicuously successful so far.
* (Seth) Similar investigation using bug tracker data instead of
commits.
* (Seth) Figure out what other DOSP licenses there are:
See "Licenses indexed there that I'm not familiar with and that we
should double-check for possible DOSP-nature" in notes.md.
* (Seth) Remaining todo items from 2023-11-03 entry below.
* (James+Karl, for now at least) We should raise (but not try to
answer) the question of why some BUSL-relicensed projects stimulate
flourishing FOSS forks while others do not. Even within Hashicorp's
projects there are pretty dramatic contrasts.
# 2023-11-03:
* Mark items in notes.md so we know what remains to be investigated in there.
Also, organize the items (either rearranging in groups or via
tagging) to make clear which ones are the kind of DOSP we're
interested in,
* High level organization of report.
- Start w/ Early History as top-level section: Aladdin
Ghostscript, & why they went to straight-up proprietary
relicensing.
Point out how Ghostscript was not a database nor a web dev
library -- it wasn't the sort of thing that would raise the more
modern worry of "Hey, my competitors will use my thing for free
*to compete with me*."
Seth notes that while we do see Company Q expressing displeasure
at competitors picking up Q's stuff and just using it to
directly compete with Q, and we see Q switching to a DOSP
license therefore, it often seems that AGPL was not seriously
considered. Understanding why would be really useful.
- Then Motivations: today, why are people doing it?
- What is their business model?
- What sector are they in?
* Document similarity between Android ecosystem and video game developer
* Document that Trolltech agreed to a DOSP fallback for QT contractually
...and say we don't know if they actually ever did DOSP.
* BUSL
- Has any project ever come out of the gate de novo as BUSL?
Or is it always relicensing an existing open source project?
QUESTION / THOUGHT: It *might* the pattern for BSL and things like
it is that a project's owners relicense to those only after their
product gets traction under a truly OSS license first -- i.e., use
OSS dynamics to gain attention, usage, and investment/loyalty, and
then use BUSL to centralizedly capture more of the value from that
loyalty than would have been possible if the project had remained
under a from-the-start OSS license.
- QUESTION: Why did the BUSL'ing of Terraform catch so much more
blowback than other things that Hashicorp BUSL'd?
- QUESTION: If we wanted to dive deeply on this one, we might want
to get stats on how many contributors jumped ship to the recent
OSS fork of Terraform vs how many stayed (and how many decided to
straddle both projects).
- OBSERVATION: Hashicorp has a CLA-checker bot that makes sure all
the authors of a PR have signed the CLA (the CLA that presumably
allowed them to relicense contributor's changes).
* Explain distinction between BUSL and (upcoming) FSL
FSL is basically a temporary non-compete -- that's its only
proprietary term, and it's an innovation relative to licenses that
have that as a permanent proprietary term.
# 2023-10-30: Seth/Karl meet and discuss next steps
* For each project mentioned in notes.md, make sure that we have the
date (or rough time period) and a basic idea of what happened with
that project.
* For any license that looks open source to us but is not
OSI-approved, find out if it was submitted to license-review@ and/or
to license-discuss@, and what the result was. These may be long
threads; we will need to summarize.
Examples of these might include:
- "Bootstrap Open Source License" (BOSL). *NOTE*: this is NOT
RELATED to the Bootstrap open source project at
getbootstrap.com! Instead, see
https://electriccoin.co/blog/introducing-tgppl-a-radically-new-type-of-open-source-license/
https://notes.andymatuschak.org/zVYtYLQkMVEV4zR9SF8i25k
- "Transitive Grace Period Public License" (TGPPL): This is really
the same as the BOSL above -- BOSL is just a rename of TGPPL.
(And Ted T'so proposed "TPL" before this.)
* Decide if we're using an "eras" approach, and, if we are, decide
what the eras are.