Are implicit dual-licensing agreements inherently anti-open?

[Matthew Seth Flaschen]

David Barrett wrote:

> Matthew Seth Flaschen wrote:
>
>> David Barrett wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> If the 10 principles are our guide, I see no requirement for 
>>> same-license code merging, and thus I think it's ok.
>>>
>> I think blocking that would violate 3, which requires allowing 
>> derivative works.  A merged program is a derivative of both original 
>> ones, and therefore must be allowed by each original program's license.
>
>
> (Matthew -- I'm assuming you intended to post this to the list, so I'm 
> replying to the list.  Sorry if this was intented to be private!)
>
> Well, I disagree in two ways.  The first is that two licenses with 
> different Initial Developers are in fact two separate licenses.  I 
> mean, how can they be the same license if they are legally different 
> (ie, assign different rights to different people)?  This strict 
> definition of license is compatible with your strict definition of 
> Open Source.
>
> However, my second disagreement is with your definition of Open 
> Source.  I don't dispute that it's a valid viewpoint.  But I think 
> there are other viewpoints that are also valid, and that many of them 
> are compatible with the third principle of OSI.  To quote:
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 3. Derived Works
> The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow 
> them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the 
> original software.
>
>     Rationale: The mere ability to read source isn't enough to support 
> independent peer review and rapid evolutionary selection. For rapid 
> evolution to happen, people need to be able to experiment with and 
> redistribute modifications.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> By my reading, it doesn't explicitly speak to the issue of merging 
> separate works that happen to use the same license, and it certainly 
> doesn't address the issue of Initial Developers.  So at best, it's 
> unclear.  I think your definition of Open Source is compatible with 
> it, as is mine, as are surely others.
>
> -david
>
Every license assigns rights to different people, depending on who 
originally licenses the product and who uses it.  Regarding "The first 
is that two licenses with different Initial Developers are in fact two 
separate licenses," that's debatable.  However, my point did not rest on 
it being incorrect.  Instead, it depended merely on both being 
open-source, and granting the same types of rights.