Are implicit dual-licensing agreements inherently anti-open?

[David Barrett]

Alex Bligh wrote:
> 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.

Yes, this makes sense.  Thus if a contributor makes a modification and 
only distributes it selectively (such as to people who pay him money), 
the ID can still request the modifications.

However, can *only* the ID request them?  For example, if you are the 
ID, and Bob makes some semi-private (ie, selectively distributed) 
modifications, can I -- as just an ordinary contributor -- request Bob's 
modified source code?

I would think that in the spirit of openness, anyone should be able to 
request them (thus the ID needn't be the sole protector of open 
redistribution of contributor modifications).

-david