3 ms·

> FSL uses this "eventual open source" mechanism too. I stand corrected. I hate license proliferation, but the naming and marketing is better. I hope the other

> FSL uses this "eventual open source" mechanism too. I stand corrected. I hate license proliferation, but the naming and marketing is better. I hope the other former open-source companies consolidate on something. > undergoes delayed Open Source publication (DOSP). [1] and that "DOSP" (Delayed Open Source Publication) is an OSI concept! [2] But I cannot (yet) find what the timeframe for the DOSP is... because we don't want to wait 90 years for Mickey to be public domain. [1] https://fair.io/about/ https://fair.io/about/ [2] https://opensource.org/delayed-open-source-publication https://opensource.org/delayed-open-source-publication

evanelias 1y ago
That linked documented was sponsored by Sentry, who led the development of FSL. I don't believe it's accurate to call DOSP an "OSI concept" -- meaning, it's not something the OSI invented or coined. OSI also does not consider such licenses to be approved under their open source definition. As for the timeframe, FSL uses a 2 year period. edit to add: just to be clear, I'm a fan of FSL and Fair Source licensing, and do not consider lack of OSI endorsement to be a problem.