Are implicit dual-licensing agreements inherently anti-open?

[David Barrett]

On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 5:37 pm, Wilson, Andrew wrote:
> 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.

True, but "openness" is not boolean.  I agree, it's more open to have 
same-license merges always work.  It's be even *more* open to freely 
merge between different licenses (which the OSI doesn't require).  But 
it's a sliding scale.

The real question, it would seem, is "is it sufficiently open for the 
OSI to approve it?".

If the 10 principles are our guide, I see no requirement for 
same-license code merging, and thus I think it's ok.

-david