Are implicit dual-licensing agreements inherently anti-open?

[John.Cowan]

Brian C scripsit:

> But, in general, I can imagine such a license that would be
> objectionable, say one that gave only U.S. citizens the right to make
> proprietary versions or gave only men such a right, or etc (fill in an
> arbitrary characteristic not related to the origin of the code.) These
> would seem to pretty squarely violate OSD #5.

I believe that #5 is generally interpreted to mean that the license may
grant additional rights to certain persons, as long as it grants the
full Open Source rights to everyone.  So while such licenses are unfair,
they are not unfree.  The obsolete APSL 1.0 was unfair in this sense.

-- 
You know, you haven't stopped talking           John Cowan
since I came here. You must have been           http://www.reutershealth.com
vaccinated with a phonograph needle.            jcowan at reutershealth.com
        --Rufus T. Firefly                      http://www.ccil.org/~cowan