All the PR states is that the costs of licensing has made the "one time lump sum payment" too expensive. When you take that in the context that the ONLY OTHER publicly communicated offering was for an on-going royalty license structure, then the default translation is that if the companies have opted for future payments, it would be through that on-going royalty structure.

That was then, this is now. The option and basis for spreading the license fee over several payments has been clearly given in the PR, it has become too expensive for some companies to make the full license fee payment immediately.

It is my very humble opinion that had there been any payments due on future usage the PR would have been worded much differently. I therefore see no ambiguity.

.

.

Be well