This seems like a fundamentally bad idea for software.
Simply put, living software contains a constant stream of patches, which "reset" the clock continuously.
It would be one thing if this license were used on a book or some other work which is substantially finished. Once the book is published, the clock starts ticking and users eventually get to the MIT pot of gold at the end of the timer.
With software, the only time that happens if after the software is abandoned. At that point, there's rarely many people interested in using it anyhow.
...to distribute or communicate copies of the Original Work and Derivative
Works to the public, with the proviso that copies of Original Work or
Derivative Works that You distribute or communicate shall be licensed
under this Transitive Grace Period Public Licence no later than 12
months after You distributed or communicated said copies
It looks like the effect is that the public versions must always lag a year behind the proprietary versions.
So, this isn't open source, although it is abandonware protection.
That's my reading as well. It's actually kind of funny to me: the term of copyright has grown so long that folks are essentially looking for ways to reimplement reasonable copyright term length inside of the construct of copyright protection itself.
Simply put, living software contains a constant stream of patches, which "reset" the clock continuously.
It would be one thing if this license were used on a book or some other work which is substantially finished. Once the book is published, the clock starts ticking and users eventually get to the MIT pot of gold at the end of the timer.
With software, the only time that happens if after the software is abandoned. At that point, there's rarely many people interested in using it anyhow.