Delayed open licensing issues

[ghost]

I read the license and I find several aspects which would prevent or make uncertain the open licensing for software, automatically, after the conversion date. In no particular order, I'd list some:

• no difference between source code and other forms of sharing software. This impacts directly open licensing later, because one can release a binary (an executable, etc) under OSE but no source code. Then when the license conversion to MIT license or CC licenses occurs, the user has no source.
• consequently, OSE doesn't require availability of source code (usually defined as the preferred form to make modifications). I fail to see how the conversion to an open license can possibly be automatic for the user, then, since they might have downloaded obfuscated or compiled code only... So they'd have to come back to the Licensor to ask for source code? But OSE doesn't give users even that right.
• the text uses both two years and five years, as limit of the conversion date. It is unclear which is meant (paragraph Calculating the conversion date, and others)
• same paragraph: the text says that the user who cannot contact the Licensor (or has no internet connection, or Licensor doesn't exist anymore) cannot benefit from the conversion to an OS license?
• the same paragraph talks about "downloading the data" - the data is not defined.
• section Grant of license, para 3: "this code" is not defined.
• section Grant of license, para 7: allows the license chosen for software to be a CC license, which should not be used for software, and are not OSI/FSF approved for software.
• same paragraph: makes no difference between free and non-free CC licenses (in the sense where ND and NC are non-free).
  (suggestions: adding Free/Libre Open Source License to Definitions; differentiating between OSI/FSF licenses for software, and free CC licenses for cultural areas other than software)
• def. 14 and 15, pre-release and after-release products... The text reads as if I can: release together A, as pre-release thing, and B, as after-release product. I open license B, and I never open license A. "Effective date" is, according to def. 6, the date when the user downloads the product (accepts OSE)... Cf. Grant of license 7), only the post-release products have to have the license "replaced", on the same date when the user accepts the license...
• def. 4, a F/L OS license can be found in court invalid through fault of the licensor? (please note IANAL, but I don't see how, logically, unless I misunderstand the term invalid).
• If found invalid through no fault of the licensor, then does this mean that: a random user B, 7 years after receiving the software, thinks it's BSD, suddenly has GPL on it, because the original Licensor is choosing so? (without notifying user B, etc)

Other issues

• "Applicable Rights" def. 7), and def. 8) seem in contradiction: claims of copyrights, trademarks, or patents not licensed under this OSE License, then they are licensed in paragraph 8?
• definition 10) is never used in the text.
• section Other provisions, para 2: looks unnecessary, OSE is a clearly proprietary license. Also, the content of the paragraph is not logically equivalent to original code only, because afaict OSE can be applied to code derived from open source permissive licenses. This also affects def. 14, pre-release.
• the text uses once "after-release" then "post-release", I presume it's the same intended meaning.

I think there are more issues, the text doesn't seem to have had a review yet.