Are implicit dual-licensing agreements inherently anti-open?

[David Barrett]

Wilson, Andrew wrote:
> First is that the ID has the right to
> see 
> *all* modifications to covered code.  If modifications have not been
> posted
> to a public place, the ID can send a letter to users of OVPL code
> demanding
> to see any of their modifications to covered code.

Alex, is this right?  I read the OVPL to mean that contributors who 
redistribute binary versions of the code must in turn make the source 
code available.  However, I thought the OVPL allowed people to make 
private (undistributed) modifications, and were under no obligation to 
inform of nor supply to the initial developer (or anyone else) those 
modifications.

Which reading is right?

-david