> Also "Early Source" rolls off the tongue better than "Delayed Open Source Publication".

Yeah, but nobody will know what "Early Source" means until you explain it, whereas the latter makes perfect sense on first reading.

There was a time when no one knew what "Open Source" meant.

After decades, people still barely know what Open Source means[0]; if you can I think it's much better to make things as obvious as possible, like ex. the Creative Commons licenses - nobody has to ask what the "Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International" license means.

[0] I remain surprised at the number of people, even on HN, who seem to think Open Source is the same as Source Available.

Fair points.

> barely know what Open Source means

Perhaps there is no license that makes sense because licenses on ideas do not make sense. You simply cannot define them logically from natural principles without having to concede that they are intellectual slavery. Ideas on licenses have never made sense and never will.

> Perhaps there is no license that makes sense because licenses on ideas do not make sense. You simply cannot define them logically from natural principles without having to concede that they are intellectual slavery. Ideas on licenses have never made sense and never will.

No, the idea is fine - I mean, sure I'd be fine[0] with totally abolishing copyright, but in the world we live in it makes perfect sense. I think it really is just a naming problem, if anything.

[0] Probably.