Are implicit dual-licensing agreements inherently anti-open?

[Wilson, Andrew]

Alex Bligh 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.
>
> Well that applies to MPL, CDDL etc. too. 

Well, no, it doesn't.  I do not need to conduct a negotiation with
IBM to create a version which merges code I originated into a
variant of Eclipse.  No-negotiation-required is a hallmark of
open source-ness, which your OVPL fails.

Absent the mandatory license back to the ID, OVPL is a perfectly
decent member of the MPL/EPL/CDDL family.  With the mandatory
license back, it falls much closer, in theory and in practice,
to the Java community process.

Not everything *has* to be open source.  There is a place
in the wide, wide world of software licensing for JCP-like
systems.  However, you are misguided in trying to insist
that OVPL is an open source license.  It's not.

Andy Wilson
Intel Open Source Technology Center