Are implicit dual-licensing agreements inherently anti-open?

[Wilson, Andrew]

Alex Bligh wrote:

> --On 13 July 2005 18:53 -0400 Mark Shewmaker <mark at primefactor.com>
wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
>Technically speaking that's true with any license that has a
>differentiated ID and contributor grant.
>
>In practice, that's far EASIER with the OVPL - if the ID's agree, there
>is none of the normal ambiguity.

My reading of OVPL is that for any piece of code, there can be one, and
only one,
ID.  In the case of merging two modules of covered code, the IDs, as you
say,
need to agree which one of them will be the ID of the merged module.
Absent
such agreement, the merged module presumably does not have a valid
license.
To my way of thinking, if a negotiation is required to create a valid
derivative
of two works which are covered by the same license, then said
license is not really open source.

Andy Wilson
Intel Open Source Technology Center