Are implicit dual-licensing agreements inherently anti-open?

[Michael Bernstein]

On Tue, 2005-07-12 at 21:22 -0700, David Barrett wrote:
> I guess my big question is:
> 
> Is it fundamentally "not open" to license source code in such a fashion 
> that the initial developer has the additional right to relicense the 
> code and all modifications under any license of his choosing, at any 
> future date?

To my mind, whether the license is still 'open' hinges on the definition
of 'all modifications'. If you truly mean *all*, then no, it is not
open. If users still have the ability to create private modifications
(to which you have no rights), then yes, such a license can be
considered open, though perhaps not particularly fair.

- Michael Bernstein