Are implicit dual-licensing agreements inherently anti-open?

[Mark Shewmaker]

On Wed, Jul 13, 2005 at 11:23:50AM -0700, Wilson, Andrew wrote:
> 
> An interesting topic for another
> thread would be when it is desirable/ethical/moral to fork a code base,
> but to my way of thinking, if you *can't* fork code due to
> restrictive licensing, then said code is not open source.

And in my mind, if you can't *merge* two code bases licensed under the
same license, then that license doesn't really fit in with the spirit of
Open Source requirements.

(The problem being that when a license requires the "initial developer"
to be granted extra rights to any changes over those granted to other
recipients, then third parties can't merge different works by separate
initial developers, even when those different works are all licensed
under that same license.  I'm assumming that the license in question
lets you make, use, sell, modify, distribute, etc., each work
individually.)

-- 
Mark Shewmaker
mark at primefactor.com