Are implicit dual-licensing agreements inherently anti-open?

[Alex Bligh]

David,

--On 20 July 2005 13:09 -0700 David Barrett <dbarrett at quinthar.com> wrote:

> Alex Bligh wrote:
>> 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.
>
> *sheepish grin*  Well, to be honest, it'd take a lot more than removing
> that paragraph to make it comprehensible by me.  This discussion has gone
> a very long way to helping me understand it, but obviously few are going
> to take the same effort.
>
> I think if you simply provided a clear (non-binding) summary that I can
> understand, along with clause-by-clause annotated version mapping the
> summary to the license, *and* have it OSI certified, I could be confident
> in using it.

We had hoped the FAQ:
  <http://openvendor.org/kb.x?T=7>
and the rationale
  <http://openvendor.org/kb.x?T=15>
would do this. I will see if I can add some more to them or simplify
them as they obviously do not. Note it's not quite like the GPL,
it's much more like the CDDL/MPL.

May be we are just too close to it, and we need a 5 line intro page.

Alex