> Citation is sorely needed for both "transition"
Sure! [1]
> The Business Source License requires the work to be relicensed to a "Change License" at the "Change Date". The "Change License" must be a "license which is compatible with GPL version 2.0 or later". The Change Date must be four years or sooner from the publication date of the work being licensed
So the business source license is less "non-OSI" and more "not currently non-OSI, but eventually and irrevocable at future date".
In the case of Terraform it says [2]:
>Change Date: Four years from the date the Licensed Work is published.
>Change License: MPL 2.0
So is this ideal? No. But it's better than OpenVMS screwing over historians and hobbyists [3] decades after it's relevancy has expired.[6]
It's also better than SSPL [4] which has no such transition and stays permanently non-OSI [5].
> "BSL XP be good for wine" claims above.
Well Wine uses the LGPL, and Windows XP was released in 2001 so even if they set the expiry 20 years after release, it'd be GPL'd by now.
---
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Source_License#Terms
[2] https://github.com/hashicorp/terraform/blob/main/LICENSE
[3] https://www.theregister.com/2024/04/09/vsi_prunes_hobbyist_p...
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Server_Side_Public_License
[5] https://web.archive.org/web/20230411163802/https://lists.ope...
[6] https://www.theregister.com/2013/06/10/openvms_death_notice/
