Are implicit dual-licensing agreements inherently anti-open?

[David Barrett]

Michael Bernstein wrote:
> But you want to make this a condition of the license. For a number of
> reasons, even if the resulting license were determined to be OSD
> compliant, I don't think this would work. At all. Being able to roll
> other people's work into your proprietary offering is a *privilege* not
> a right.

It's very clear that the OVPL makes you uncomfortable, and that you 
might not contribute under its terms.  But could you please detail:

1) Which OSI principle does the OVPL violate, and how?

2) Why might the OVPL be unenforceable?

I agree with your assessment that an ID could be a total loser and abuse 
his privileges in such a way that hamstrings the project and pisses 
people off.  The OVPL was never intended to make people nice or smart.

But it seems to me that *at worst*, if the ID is wholly malicious in 
every possible way, the greatest harm he can cause is... not 
redistribute contributions.  I mean, the *absolute worst case scenario* 
is really not bad at all as anybody can just take the whole body of 
source code, set up an alternate repository, and manage it like any 
other open-source project.  Problem solved.

Furthermore, you seem to be discounting that there's any possible way 
that such an arrangement could go "right".  I mean, do you disagree that 
it's possible an ID could be smart, could treat his community of 
contributors fairly, and could actually release code in an open way -- 
code that probably wouldn't have been released at all otherwise -- such 
that he and everyone benefits?

Nobody is obligated to use the OVPL.  Nobody is obligated to contribute 
under the OVPL.  It's just another option that, depending on the 
application and participants, can go well or badly.  Just like any other 
license.

-david