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-marke
On Tue, Oct 31, 2023 at 12:49 PM Jim Jagielski wrote:
> I agree that delayed FOSS is not open source. I also agree that OSI is
> ideally situated to be a major voice in clearing up that FUD and opposing
> the abuse of the term Open Source.
We're off-topic but I don't want to leave this unaddres
> On Oct 27, 2023, at 2:06 PM, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
>
> FWIW, I can confirm Larry Rosen's suggestion that indeed L. Peter Deutsch and
> Aladdin Ghostscript likely invented the manipulative marketing approach of
> pre-announcing that proprietary software might someday be FOSS and/or making
> s
On 10/27/23 13:06, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
> FWIW, I can confirm Larry Rosen's suggestion that indeed L. Peter Deutsch and
> Aladdin Ghostscript likely invented the manipulative marketing approach of
> pre-announcing that proprietary software might someday be FOSS and/or making
> semi-binding public
Producing open source software isn't a bad thing, even if you don't get
it immediately. OSI's position toward proprietary software has always
been that the proprietary nature has a cost in terms of outside
contributions to your software. I mean, I never knew that the Pep Boys
were using my Toke
> On Oct 25, 2023, at 9:43 PM, Seth David Schoen wrote:
>
> 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 t
> 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
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.
If researchers start out with a predefined conclusion, you get shoddy
research.
A research pr
FWIW, I can confirm Larry Rosen's suggestion that indeed L. Peter Deutsch and
Aladdin Ghostscript likely invented the manipulative marketing approach of
pre-announcing that proprietary software might someday be FOSS and/or making
semi-binding public statements or licensing terms that backup that ma
The quotation from my 2005 Open Source Licensing book drew an update from
Peter Deutsch. He asked that I update the history. Here it is:
While your account was accurate for quite a few years, Artifex eventually
abandoned the AFPL / GPL division, I believe because they found that it was
a bit of
[This email is BCC Peter Deutsch and Kyle Mitchell.]
To: OSI License Discuss
A bit of history about what you are calling “delayed source” in your recent
emails.
My friend, Peter Deutsch, invented what we then called “eventual licensing”
for his Ghostscript software. This software was ma
On 10/25/23 21:30, JBC offsite wrote:
I think Roland Turner may be suggesting that MariaDB falls into that class?
Not MariaDB itself, which is GPL and has to be since it uses GPL MySQL code.
I think maybe some of their tools are under the BuSL? They wrote the
"license" but I've never been su
On Wed, Oct 25, 2023 at 9:44 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
Creative Commons did some research on "springing licenses" several years
ago that may be of interest:
https://creativecommons.org/about/legal-tools-licenses/springing-licenses/
-Kat
On Wed, Oct 25, 2023 at 6:44 PM Seth David Schoen
wrote:
> Hi license-discuss members,
>
> I'm working on a resea
On 10/25/23 23:30, JBC offsite wrote:
> I think Roland Turner may be suggesting that MariaDB falls into that class?
MariaDB was a trauma response to Oratroll's acquisition of MySQL the same way
Libre Office was a trauma reaction to Oratroll's acquisition of OpenOffice.
(According to the creator of
On 10/25/23 23:01, Roland Turner via License-discuss wrote:
> (replying on list as this seems in scope for license-discuss, although it
> clearly wouldn't be for license-review)
>
> This is in an interesting question and one that I've been thinking about
> lately
> (in particular as a potentia
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 Tuesda
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
(replying on list as this seems in scope for license-discuss, although
it clearly wouldn't be for license-review)
This is in an interesting question and one that I've been thinking about
lately (in particular as a potential talk for FOSSASIA 2024) because of
the recent rush of half-baked "open
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 co
20 matches
Mail list logo
