OVPL and open ownership

[Chris Zumbrunn]

On Jul 23, 2005, at 9:10 AM, David Barrett wrote:

> Chris Zumbrunn wrote:
>> Hmm, David, if you are willing to go this far then you are really 
>> moving away from what the OVPL intents (I don't think making 3.3 
>> optional will be acceptable to Alex's client).
>
> Well, I'm not sure I agree, but I'll wait for Alex to speak to the 
> issue.  It's not my intent to change the practical effects of the OVPL 
> (copyleft open source community with extra ID privileges).  Rather, it 
> was my intent to change the philosophical underpinnings of the license 
> to be more open.  So from a principled basis, perhaps it's a big 
> shift, but the practical effect is intended to be quite small.  
> Indeed, there should be no practical difference unless the ID loses 
> the faith of the community.
>
>
>> I've been following the discussion all along and your intention 
>> seemed not to be adequately addressed by the Copyback license. But 
>> with your latest statements you've moved significantly in this 
>> direction. The main remaining difference is that the Copyback license 
>> also allows others to create proprietary derivative works as long as 
>> they fulfill the copyback obligation. In all other regards I think it 
>> addresses your original concerns better than what you are proposing 
>> now.
>
> I looked on opensource.com, but didn't see the Copyback License 
> mentioned.  Is it OSI approved?

No, it's been discussed on this list but I have not asked for approval.

> But if as you say the Copyback license allows anyone to make 
> prorietary derivative works (like BSD), then I don't think it'll work 
> for me.

Well, think about it. An ID still gets a license-back for all the 
modifications and additions to the original project and can use them in 
its own proprietary product.

Chris