Are implicit dual-licensing agreements inherently anti-open?

[Alex Bligh]

--On 20 July 2005 17:53 +0100 Alex Bligh <alex at alex.org.uk> wrote:

>> Would you agree with this summary?  If not, how would you enumerate what
>> remains to be discussed on this list before it's left to the OSI board to
>> make a judgement?
>
> No - Andrew is (as I understand it) still contending that the OVPL is less
> enforceable than other bare reciprocal licenses, and I am interested in
> bottoming out why he thinks that. IE I think there is another live issue.

And also no because someone (you David B!) said 3.3 was incomprehensible.
I suggested a fix (deleting the second half of the long sentence starting
at the words "PROVIDED THAT"). I'd prefer it was comprehensible by
non-lawyers if this is not at the expense of useful functionality.

Alex