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

[Bradley M. Kuhn]

> On 10/27/23 11:06, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:

> I'm sad (but also sadly not surprised) to see that OSI is not willing to
> outright criticize this model, since it is primarily a proprietary software
> model.

Josh Berkus wrote:

> If researchers start out with a predefined conclusion, you get shoddy
> research.

Oh, I agree completely, and I apologize that my prior email was apparently
worded in some way to make you think I don't agree with that general point.

I just didn't really think of OSI as an organization that funded basic
research in FOSS, but rather an a pro-Open-Source advocacy organization.
It's strange to see OSI funding so much neutral-point-of-view /
proprietary-software-is-just-as-legitimate-as-FOSS sorts of projects lately.

Given the heavy academic interest in “studying FOSS”, it seems to me we
should leave such research to those academics — instead spending the precious
little resources in the 501(c)(3) FOSS orgs to focus on advocacy for
important positions, such as taking a strong pro-open-source stance.

Meanwhile, I've been a subject interviewee/expert in some of the research
done by academics of FOSS lately.  The researchers have claimed to come from
a neutral point of view, but have found the research to often be biased
toward Big Tech anyway (because that's often who funds the research, and thus
sets the research agenda).  I'm thus pretty skeptical that any research of
FOSS policy is going to be truly neutral and rigorously scientific — at least
right now.  The ideal you're looking for there might be unattainable anyway
in the current political climate, so all the research (at least on FOSS) is
likely probably going to be shoddy no matter who does it right now.
--
Bradley M. Kuhn - he/them