3 ms·
> time-bombed open source license That's contradictory by definition; such a license would not be Open Source. (With care, the three-years-later version could
by JoshTriplett 4y ago
> time-bombed open source license
That's contradictory by definition; such a license would not be Open Source. (With care, the three-years-later version could be Open Source, at which point people could build on that.)
- manholio 4y agoIt would not be open source for the duration of the time-bomb, clearly, that's the point of creating an exclusivity period. After the time-bomb, it's undeniably open source: users have all the freedoms granted by open source and they have the option to release their derived version with a zero days time bomb, effectively equivalent in all respects to GPL. What GPL does not grant, and such a license would, is the ability to create a non-zero commercial exclusivity period, during which the software reverts to commercial-with-source-available status.
- valbaca 4y agono, it's not. the source is open, it's support that's charged.
- JoshTriplett 4y agoThe comment I was replying to said: > limited exclusivity period for the author during which they can charge for the software It didn't say "support for the software" (and in any case anyone can provide support for the software).