OVPL and open ownership

[David Barrett]

Chris Zumbrunn wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> Let me reword this... An ID still gets a license-back for all the 
> modifications and additions and can use them in its own proprietary 
> product.

So, am I correct in understanding the Copyback requires everyone to make 
their changes available to the ID, but not necessarily to anyone else?
If so, this might be sufficient for me, but only barely as it's a big 
burden to police the world by myself.  The OVPL spreads the burden of 
enforcement over a larger group by empowering many people (either anyone 
who received the distribution, or anyone in the world -- I can't recall; 
which is it?) to demand accesss to non-ID modifications, not just me.

But overall, the novelty I'm looking for is an exclusive leg-up over any 
competitors that spring up around my codebase.  This mitigates the risk 
of some developer simply checking out my code on day one, doing a search 
and replace with a new name, and setting up shop on near-equal footing 
as me (but without having made the same investment).

Naturally, the Copyback still allows (and making OVPL's 3.3 opt-out 
still enables) anyone to fork off the mainline.  But so long as I'm a 
good steward and prove to the community my ID privilege is well deserved 
(such as by contributing extensively to the project and being a good 
manager), this risk is remote.

Furthermore, by granting the privilege of *totally* proprietary 
derivatives exclusively to the ID, it creates a commercial incentive for 
the ID to keep contributing to the project, keep managing it well, keep 
funding any resources on which it depends, and so forth.

If the Copyback supports this, it might work, though to be honest the 
OVPL still seems a bit closer.  That, I would really prefer to use an 
OSI-approved license.  Have you considered submitting it?

-david