[geofft]

> BTW, the OSI people on their mailing list weren't convinced that the license is conformant (during the grace period) in 2008, 2009, or 2013.

Thanks, that's interesting. If you happen to have the links to the discussion it'd be worth figuring out what they thought was nonconformant (and whether it can be fixed).

[nsajko]

One issue seems to be that it wasn't seen as desirable to promote something that is not source-available under whatever license, which conflicts with the main idea of the TGPPL of keeping the software closed-source during the grace period. Another issue was ensuring the source becomes available after the grace period as intended. I may be wrong, though, as I haven't read even half of the extensive discussions on this topic.

OSI board meetings discussing TGPPL briefly: https://opensource.org/minutes20090205 https://opensource.org/minutes20090304 https://opensource.org/minutes20090401

Relevant mailing list threads:

Dec 2008 thread: https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists....

Jan 2009 thread: https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists....

Feb 2009 thread: https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists....

Jul 2013 threads: https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists... https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists...

Dec 2013 message: https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists...

Jul 2018 thread: https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists...

You might also be slightly interested in this small Wikipedia page section relevant to the motivation for the TGPPL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_models_for_open-sourc...