Are implicit dual-licensing agreements inherently anti-open?

[Chuck Swiger]

David Barrett wrote:
> Ok, so is it safe to say the overall intent of the OVPL (to use a 
> copyleft-like license for everyone but the initial developer) is "open" 
> in an OSI sense, even if not "free" in a FSF sense?

I suspect the FSF folks would describe the OVPL as "free" but not "fair".
The OVPL is evidently not GPL-miscable....

> If so, this still leaves the question of whether or not it's legally 
> enforceable.  Has anyone any opinion on this?

I'm not sure that this question is completely useful.  Lots of OSI-approved 
licenses contain clauses which are not enforcable everywhere (disclaimer of all 
liability comes to mind), or which would require a countersigned contract 
agreement rather than "consent implied by usage or clickwrap".

-- 
-Chuck