EDITORIAL STANDARDS
How we research, review, and correct our content.
Everything we publish is meant to help enterprise buyers make a high-stakes decision about open source license exposure. Because that advice carries real financial and contractual consequences, we hold our content to standards we are willing to state in public. This page explains who writes it, how it is reviewed, how we keep it current, and how to flag an error.
Who writes our content
Every assessment, case study, and guide on this site is written by a named advisor with direct experience in open source licensing and enterprise negotiation — Fredrik Filipsson or Morten Andersen. We do not publish anonymous content, and we do not publish under invented author names. Each article carries a visible byline linking to the author's full profile.
How we research
We work from primary sources: the actual license texts (BSL, SSPL, RSALv2, AGPL and others), the vendors' own announcements, and the dates those changes took effect. Where we state a fact about a license change — what changed, when, and to which products — it is traceable to the vendor's published record. We reference license names and dates for identification only, and we tell readers to confirm current terms with their own counsel.
How we review
Each piece of YMYL content is written by one advisor and reviewed by the other before publication. The reviewer checks the licensing facts, the dates, the math behind any exposure or cost figure, and the conservatism of every claim. The published page names both the author and the reviewer.
We provide commercial and licensing risk advisory, not legal advice. We are careful to keep that line visible, and we point readers to their own counsel for interpretation and compliance questions.
How we keep content current
License terms move. Each page shows a published date and a last-updated date, and we revisit our core pages when a project relicenses, adds an open option, or changes commercial terms. When the facts change, we update the page and move its last-updated date rather than leaving stale guidance live.
Use of AI
We use AI tools to assist with research, drafting, and consistency checks. Every published page is reviewed, fact-checked, and approved by the named advisor before it goes live, and the advisor whose byline appears on a page is accountable for its accuracy. When we find an error, we correct the page and update its modification date.
Independence and conflicts
We are paid only by the buyer. We resell no software, take no referral or vendor fees, and hold no position in any project we assess. If that ever changes for a given engagement, we disclose it. See why independence matters.
Corrections and fact-checking policy
If you believe something we have published is inaccurate or out of date, tell us and we will check it against the primary source. Where we are wrong, we correct the page promptly and note the correction and its date. To report an error, email info@opensourcelicenserisk.com with the page URL and the specific claim.
Last updated 25 June 2026.