Are implicit dual-licensing agreements inherently anti-open?

[brianwc at OCF.Berkeley.EDU]

Hi,

[SNIP]
> The situation about "partial distribution" is where, for instance, B sells
> some form of specialized hardware appliance, and only distributes the
> modified executable with the hardware. Only those buying the hardware can
> then ask for the source under the (unmodified) CDDL, GPL, etc. Joe Public
> cannot (even if Joe is a contributor). What the OVPL does additionally
> here is give the ID a right to request modifications, where B is not
> making them publicly available.

Someone is confused here. Let's figure out if it's you or me. I think you
misunderstand the GPL's requirement of providing source when distributing
a modification. Look at GPL Section 3:

...
3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it,
under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of
Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:

    a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable
    source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections
    1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,

    b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three
    years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your
    cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete
    machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be
    distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium
    customarily used for software interchange;
...

In your example B distributes hardware with a modified executable, i.e., B
also distributes software. If that executable software were covered by the
GPL, then B needs to satisfy 3a or 3b (assuming 3c is not relevant in this
example.) You say B "only" distributes the executable, so I take that to
mean B doesn't provide source under 3a. Consequently, B must provide
source under 3b, that is, B must provide source to "any third party" not
just those who buy the hardware/software. Joe Public *can* get the source
in this situation. Did you intend a different hypothetical? Or perhaps
OVPL is designed based upon a misunderstanding of reciprocal licenses?

Brian