OSI-approved license that assigns contributor copyright to me

[Alex Bligh]

Brian,

> As I read the OVPL it doesn't require copyright assignment, which David
> asked about, but rather provides for a sufficiently generous
> license-back such that it might still meet David's needs.

Yes. It does not go to quite the extremes David asked for. I wasn't
taking him entirely literally as if "all rights" were assigned to the
ID that would prevent the modifier using their own modification!

> As an aside, in OVPL 3.3 everything after "BUT SUCH GRANT SHALL BE AND
> SHALL REMAIN CONDITIONAL UPON..." strikes me as fairly unclear. Has
> there been a discussion on this list yet of what exactly that part of
> the license is trying to say? Whatever the answer, it seems it could be
> said more clearly.

There has, but not of the current drafting. The previous drafting was not
particularly clear and we tried to improve it. What it's trying to say in
English is that if the ID uses modifications in their own proprietary
version, they can only do so if they continue to make publicly available at
least one version incorporating that ID under the terms of the license.
IE what they can't do is incorporate someone else's modification (which
might otherwise disappear), and keep quiet about it. Clearly the
modification itself (under the terms of the license) is usable by anyone
else, but this in effect puts an additional requirement on the ID that
they make it available (as opposed to merely usable).

Any clarifications are welcome, either in the form of suggestions for
redrafting, or merely pointing out areas of ambiguity/incomprehensibility.

Another comment:
> While perhaps not technically a problem for OSD #3 (must allow derived
> works) requiring assignment as part of the license certainly thwarts the
> intent of #3 and of open source software generally. Open source software
> generally is thought of as providing a "right to fork". That right would
> become fairly meaningless if I could fork, but every change I made and
> distributed had to be assigned back to you. I'd have a fork in which I
> had no ownership and so if, for instance, you or someone else were to
> start violating the terms of the license, I couldn't even do anything to
> stop it because I wouldn't own any portion of my fork.

I am not sure this hits the matter straight on. I think you are right
about the "right to fork", but the 'evil' in the assignment is not
in the additional rights gained by the ID, but the rights lost by the
modifier. Therefore I don't think a license-back (where the modification
itself continues to be available under open-source terms, along
with the modified work) is problematic in that respect.

Alex