Are implicit dual-licensing agreements inherently anti-open?

[Alex Bligh]

--On 20 July 2005 13:12 -0700 David Barrett <dbarrett at quinthar.com> 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.

I think your reading is mostly right. 3.3 only applies to "Licensed
Modifications" which are Modifications that "You contribute, distribute, or
otherwise make available whether in Source Code form or in Executable
form." and thus does not cover modifications that are private &
undistributed.

The written request of the ID bit (to which Andrew Wilson refers) thus is
only relevant to Licensed Modifications which are NOT made generally
available to the public at large (i.e. those selectively distributed). In
this instance (only), the ID can ask for details of those modifications.
This was a formulation we came up in response to some response on this
list.

Alex