Embed Notice

HTML Code

<blockquote style="position: relative; padding-left: 55px;"><section><a href="https://kfogel.org/objects/9ef156b6-18c0-4e03-9a68-43577d043ad3">Karl Fogel (kfogel@kfogel.org)'s status on Thursday, 05-Mar-2026 03:52:11 JST</a><a href="https://kfogel.org/users/kfogel" title="kfogel@kfogel.org"><img src="https://gnusocial.jp/avatar/43551-48-20221130211141.webp" width="48" height="48" alt="Karl Fogel" style="position: absolute; left: 0; top: 0;">Karl Fogel</a><div><a href="https://mastodon.social/@amszmidt/116172061764782595" rel="in-reply-to">in reply to</a><ul><li></ul></div></section><article><p><a href="https://mastodon.social/@amszmidt">@amszmidt</a> I can eschew anything (for works I distribute), but I still need to understand the effects of things I eschew :-).</p><p>A more complex response is maybe in order, though.  I don't think all non-FOSS licenses are equally eschew-worthy.  For example, while I'd always rather have something under a FOSS license from the start than under BUSL, still BUSL is much, much better than straight up default proprietary copyright terms.</p><p>An even more complex response is here (though only covering a subset of source-available licenses): <a href="https://opensource.org/delayed-open-source-publication">https://opensource.org/delayed-open-source-publication</a></p></article><footer><a rel="bookmark" href="https://gnusocial.jp/conversation/6207156#notice-12233065">In conversation</a><time datetime="2026-03-05T03:52:11+09:00" title="Thursday, 05-Mar-2026 03:52:11 JST">about 4 months ago</time> <span>from <span><a href="https://kfogel.org/objects/9ef156b6-18c0-4e03-9a68-43577d043ad3" rel="external" title="Sent from kfogel.org via ActivityPub">kfogel.org</a></span></span><a href="https://kfogel.org/objects/9ef156b6-18c0-4e03-9a68-43577d043ad3">permalink</a><h4>Attachments</h4><ol><li><label><a rel="external" href="https://gnusocial.jp/attachment/5858431">Untitled attachment</a></label><br></li><li><article><header><div>Domain not in remote thumbnail source whitelist: i0.wp.com</div><h5><a href="https://opensource.org/delayed-open-source-publication">Delayed Open Source Publication - Open Source Initiative</a></h5><div> from <span>Nick Vidal</span></div></header><div>Delayed Open Source Publication (DOSP) is the practice of distributing or publicly deploying software under a proprietary license at first, then subsequently and in a planned fashion publishing that software’s...</div><footer></footer></article></li></ol></footer></blockquote>

Corresponding Notice

Embed this notice
Karl Fogel (kfogel@kfogel.org)'s status on Thursday, 05-Mar-2026 03:52:11 JSTKarl Fogel
in reply to
- Alfred M. Szmidt
@amszmidt I can eschew anything (for works I distribute), but I still need to understand the effects of things I eschew :-).
A more complex response is maybe in order, though. I don't think all non-FOSS licenses are equally eschew-worthy. For example, while I'd always rather have something under a FOSS license from the start than under BUSL, still BUSL is much, much better than straight up default proprietary copyright terms.
An even more complex response is here (though only covering a subset of source-available licenses): https://opensource.org/delayed-open-source-publication
In conversationabout 4 months ago from kfogel.orgpermalink
Attachments
1. Untitled attachment
2. Domain not in remote thumbnail source whitelist: i0.wp.com
  Delayed Open Source Publication - Open Source Initiative
  from Nick Vidal
  Delayed Open Source Publication (DOSP) is the practice of distributing or publicly deploying software under a proprietary license at first, then subsequently and in a planned fashion publishing that software’s...