[License-discuss] Query on "delayed open source" licensing

[Russell Nelson]

Well that's unfortunate.  Consider that anybody who is developing open 
source software in a cathedral manner is doing a form of delayed open 
source. The only difference is that they don't distribute the version 
under development. I think people's dislike of delayed Open Source is 
the anti-market bias. You see this bias in organ donation as well. It's 
illegal to buy an organ from someone in the US, even a kidney. You can 
compensate them for their expenses, but nothing more. Why? Anti-market 
bias. Same thing for blood. You can get a gift of nominal value, but you 
otherwise are making a donation to the Red Cross who, by the way, sells 
your blood. Clearly somebody got an exemption.

Another lesson in economics from the Angry Economist, because 
understanding economics is like a superpower.

On 10/31/23 15:47, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> I agree that delayed FOSS is not open source.