> time-bombed open source license
That's contradictory by definition; such a license would not be Open Source. (With care, the three-years-later version could be Open Source, at which point people could build on that.)
That's contradictory by definition; such a license would not be Open Source. (With care, the three-years-later version could be Open Source, at which point people could build on that.)
After the time-bomb, it's undeniably open source: users have all the freedoms granted by open source and they have the option to release their derived version with a zero days time bomb, effectively equivalent in all respects to GPL. What GPL does not grant, and such a license would, is the ability to create a non-zero commercial exclusivity period, during which the software reverts to commercial-with-source-available status.
> limited exclusivity period for the author during which they can charge for the software
It didn't say "support for the software" (and in any case anyone can provide support for the software).