.gitignore

@@ -19,3 +19,4 @@ noun_Key_1785639_ltgreen.svg
 noun_Telephone_2591756.svg
 noun_Telephone_2591756_ltgreen.svg
 svg-inkscape
+doc/kde

README.md

-Research on *delayed open source publication* (DOSP): the practice of
+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 (usually in a planned fashion) 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
+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

 #!/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 )/..
 

notes.md

@@ -8,25 +8,9 @@ Databases licensed under BUSL:
 
 https://dbdb.io/browse?license=business-source-license&q=
 
-Licenses indexed there that I'm not familiar with and that we should double-check for possible
-DOSP-nature:
-
-```
-Code Project Open License
-Commons Clause License
-Elastic License v2
-Fair Source License
-Microsoft Reference Source License
-Mulan PubL v2
-OpenLDAP Public License
-Open Software License 3.0
-Parity Public License
-Server Side Public License
-VoltDB Proprietary License
-```
-
-We can also do a search for particular SPDX values, like "BUSL" or "BUSL-1.1", in a SPDX line --
-probably on GitHub!
+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
 
@@ -93,16 +77,6 @@ need followup.
 
   I haven't found any delayed licensing information.
 
-* ONE-OFF Onivim 2 [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
-
-  There was an early-access sponsorship system but there was never a
-  public commitment to relicense the code under an open source license.
-  The developer later stopped working on the project and then relicensed
-  it as MIT in its entirety.
-
 * Android (Google's eventual publication of changes to AOSP)
 
   If Google has typically been pretty regular about releasing stuff to
@@ -174,17 +148,6 @@ 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".
 
-See also [Creative Commons Final Report: On the Viability and
-Development of Springing
-Licenses](https://creativecommons.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Springing-licenses-FINAL.pdf).
-
-Lawrence Rosen's book *Open Source Licensing: Software Freedom and Intellectual Property Law* uses the term "eventual source".
-
-And Kyle Mitchell just published (as we were in the middle of doing
-this research) the blog post [A Short, Simple Template for Scheduled
-Relicensing](https://writing.kemitchell.com/2023/10/24/Scheduled-Relicensing),
-that should probably at least be referenced from our report.
-
 # Enforceability
 
 The Creative Commons review seems to have been concerned that springing
@@ -223,26 +186,3 @@ more examples.  Please add other threads here too.
   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.)
-
-# 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
-* L. Peter Deutsch
-* Raph Levien
-* Zooko
-* Your Name Here...
-
-# Sources / Acknowledgements
-
-* Simon Phipps
-* Stefano Maffulli
-* Nick Vidal
-* Bastian Greshake Tzovaras
-* Sam Ramji
-* Heather Meeker
-* Abby Kearns
-* Alex Scammon

parkinglot.ltx

+\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.
+
+