OSI-approved license that assigns contributor copyright to me

[David Barrett]

Alex Bligh wrote:
> 
> Yes - that's exactly the sort of approach we took with the OVPL :-)
> The main difference between our approaches is really that the OVPL is
> long, and your license is short.

Ok, after all this I think I've come around to complete agreement with 
you.  I agree that:

1) No existing OSI license does what the OPVL does
2) The goals of the OVPL are compatible with OSI principles
3) The goals of the OVPL are the same as mine

So really my remaining hangup on using the OVPL is:

a) It's not yet OSI-approved (symbolic, yes, but important)
b) It's really frickin' long and complicated.

(b) is the bigger hangup of mine.  I feel like I'm reading an obfuscated 
C contest entry and my eyes glaze over after like the sixth page. 
Granted, I think the GPL is way too long too, but at least the GPL has 
so much momentum that it's easier to say "well, even if I don't 
understand it, people who I trust do".  But the OVPL has no such 
momentum, so it's a bit scary to release my source code under the 
license.  I mean, how can I explain to my users what it means if I 
personally don't even know?

Specifically, I *think* the portion of the license relevant to this 
discussion is the first sentence of section 3.3.  However, that sentence 
is *30 lines long*, and even after several readings I don't see how it 
accomplishes anything at all.  At the very least, it doesn't appear to 
grant me any additional rights beyond what anybody else has.  At best it 
says I can "sublicense" the contribution, but this right is already 
granted to everyone under section 2.1.a.  Furthermore, I don't see the 
scope of the word "sublicense" defined anywhere, so it's not at all 
clear what prevents anyone else from "sublicensing" my code into a 
closed, proprietary fork.

Granted, I bet it does and I'm just not reading it right.  But even if 
you explain to me how it does work, my point remains -- if I'm not smart 
enough to see it after several readings, I can't expect my contributors 
to fare any better when they have much less incentive to understand.

For your and others' benefit, I've copied section 3.3 below:

-------------------------------------------------------------------
3.3.      Additional License of Modifications to Initial Developer.

To the fullest extent permitted by law, in addition to the license 
granted under clause 2, You hereby grant a perpetual, irrevocable, 
world-wide royalty-free, sub-licensable, non-exclusive license to the 
Licensed Modifications to the Initial Developer in respect of Future 
Versions:

(a)       under intellectual property rights (other than patent or 
trademark) Licensable by You to use, reproduce, modify, display, 
perform, sublicense, and distribute the Licensed Modifications (or 
portions thereof); and

(b)       under Patent Claims infringed by the making, using, or selling 
of Licensed Modifications either alone and/or in combination with the 
Original Software and prior Modifications used by You (or portions of 
such combination), to make, use, sell, offer for sale, have made, and/or 
otherwise dispose of: (1) the Licensed Modifications (or portions 
thereof); and (2) the combination of the Licensed Modifications, the 
Original Software and prior Modifications used by You (or portions of 
such combination)

BUT SUCH GRANT SHALL BE AND SHALL REMAIN CONDITIONAL UPON the Initial 
Developer procuring that in respect of each Future Version:

(i)        all Licensed Modifications incorporated in that Future 
Version; and

(ii)       either that Future Version or another Future Version 
incorporating the same Licensed Modifications (possibly together with 
other Modifications)

are made and remain generally available to the public at large under the 
terms of this License or a subsequent version of this License released 
under Section 4.1, with the Initial Developer identified as such 
therein, in addition to under any other license(s) of the Initial 
Developer if any. Such license shall be effective on the date that You 
first distributed such Modifications and shall apply to the 
Modifications both in the form contributed, distributed or otherwise 
made available and in Source Code form. If You do not make all of your 
Licensed Modifications irrevocably generally available to the public at 
large, then, upon written request of the Initial Developer, You must 
promptly provide, at the Initial Developer’s cost, a copy of all 
Licensed Modifications together with the date at which each grant 
thereto became effective. For the avoidance of doubt, in the absence of 
such a request, You are not required under this Section to notify the 
Initial Developer if you contribute, distribute, or otherwise make 
available Modifications.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

So I trust that we have the same goals, and I even trust that your OVPL 
accomplishes those goals (merely because I'm a trusting person and you 
seem like a nice guy).  But my trust is insufficient; it's my 
contributor's trust I need.  And I don't see how this license will win 
my contributor's trust due to its long, verbose, and complicated 
structure.  It might succeed in satisfying the lawyers, but I fear it 
does so at the expense of scaring away small-time contributors that 
havent't the resources nor interest to hire a laywer.

So with all that in mind, have you any interest in creating an OVPL-lite 
license, designed for the little guy?

-david