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

[JBC offsite]

I think Roland Turner may be suggesting that MariaDB falls into that
class? 

On 10/25/2023 at 9:27 PM, "JBC offsite"  wrote:This is an interesting
topic.  Your data will be helpful.
As you suggested, "we plan to open source later" is right up there
with Wimpy's promise to repay Popeye "next Tuesday."However:  I wonder
if there are any cases of "I now irrevocably grant this work under
Apache/GPL/BSD/whatever, effective 1/1/2027," or something similar?  
A present grant, as opposed to a future promise to make a grant. 
Regards Jamie from OASIS

On 10/25/2023 at 7:15 PM, "Seth David Schoen"  wrote:Hi
license-discuss members,

I'm working on a research project with Open Tech Strategies and the
Open
Source Initiative, on the topic of delayed open source licensing.

This refers to licensing models where a project is initially published
under non-open-source terms, but with a promise that the code will be
relicensed as open source, with some delay or under some conditions,
in
the future.  In some cases this may be a recurring practice where
updated versions are continually relicensed on a specific schedule
over
time.

Of course, license instruments that implement this strategy are not
themselves open source licenses.  But we thought it was likely that
subscribers of this list would be familiar with examples of this
practice and might be able to suggest some that we haven't identified
yet.  As Karl Fogel writes,

> We’d like to gather as many examples as we can, both historical
and
> modern, for a whitepaper that will examine the effects of DOSP on
open
> source projects and on open source as a whole. The paper will take
no
> position in the paper on the desirability of DOSP; its purpose is to
> provide accurate historical description and objective analysis.

You can see examples that we already know about at

https://code.librehq.com/ots/dosp-research/-/blob/main/notes.md

and you can contribute any additional pointers by e-mail at
.  Most replies should probably not
be sent on-list to license-discuss, as we are not intending to suggest
that these are examples of open-source licenses.

(In my interpretation, one-off relicensing of formerly proprietary
software under an open source license, that was not planned in
advance,
isn't the phenomenon that we're looking at.  So, famous cases like
Netscape Navigator, StarOffice, or Blender are probably not included
here -- they simply weren't working with an intended "delay".)

Thanks in advance for any suggestions!

_______________________________________________
The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and not
necessarily those of the Open Source Initiative. Official statements
by the Open Source Initiative will be sent from an opensource.org
email address.

License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss at lists.opensource.org
http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20231025/0c3e09ce/attachment-0001.html>