Are implicit dual-licensing agreements inherently anti-open?

[David Barrett]

John.Cowan wrote:
> David Barrett scripsit:
> 
>>The GPL, which I think we can also agree is "open", is at the opposite 
>>end of the spectrum.  It explicitly disallows anyone to take code a 
>>closed branch -- initial developer or otherwise.
> 
> The *copyright owner* can always take his/her/its own code to
> a closed branch, whether it is licensed under the GPL or not.
> "Copyright [ownership] trumps license."

Well, to be precise, a copyright owner can re-license his work under a 
closed license.  But yes, you're right.  I assumed this was implicit.


> In fact, it may be possible for a GPL licensor to revoke everyone else's
> rights by mere notice, as there is no contract that prevents it -- only
> the shaky reed of promissory estoppel.

Again, this is possibly true, but hasn't been confirmed by any court. 
The GPL is based on the assumption that the court will deny such a 
request.

But regardless, I'm not arguing the GPL is legally valid (how could I?). 
  I'm merely arguing that if the GPL, BSD, and MPL licenses are all 
considered "open" by the OSI, then the OVPL license should also be 
"open".  Whether legally enforceable is an entirely separate topic.

-david