OVPL and open ownership

[Alex Bligh]

David,


>> --On 23 July 2005 08:41 +0200 Chris Zumbrunn <chris at czv.com> 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).
>>
>> Correct (me, and David Ryan's, to be precise). I am still thinking about
>> the BSD thing though.
>
> Could you clarify what you're thinking are about "the BSD thing"?  My
> understanding of the idea was that developers submit contributions under
> the BSD license, thus enabling the ID (and everyone else) to use these
> contributions in a proprietary derivative.
>
> Please forgive my befuddlement, but wouldn't this negate the entire value
> of the OVPL?

No, because works made that used the Initial Developer's contribution would
still be subject to the OVPL (i.e. have to provide source for free under
the terms of the OVPL).

Remember under the vast majority (I hate to say all) of reciprocal
licenses, ANYONE can go and make a proprietary version of the code (i.e.
distribute in executable form - closed) provided they ALSO make available
the source under the terms of the license. So I am going to use the words
"Proprietary Version" to mean "a proprietary version without the obligation
to distribute source on open-source terms".

With Ernest's BSD idea, effectively the ID grant is under the terms of the
OVPL as it stands, and the contributor's grant is BSD-ish. So a third party
can only distribute a Proprietary Version IF they do not rely on the ID
grant - that is if the work isn't derived from the ID's own code. So in
practical terms, if a contributor submits a one-line bug fix to the ID's
code, that cannot stand alone as an original work, so is only going to be
licensed on an OVPL basis (in practical terms), as the BSD license isn't
worth a lot to a community member who wants to make a Proprietary Version
because they'd still need a license to the ID's code, which has only been
granted on open terms. But if the contributor adds an entire new module,
ANYONE can use that (to the extent it doesn't rely on the ID's code) under
any license.

> - At best, with no ill-will or explicit intent on the part of any
> contributor, this would gradually erode the unique value of the ID's
> privilege as the whole project would gradually tend toward BSD (ie, code
> converts from OVPL to BSD, but not back).

I don't think that's necessarily a problem. Remember the ID's own code
would stay OVPL. So if the community are doing all the work (to the
extent the ID's original grant becomes irrelevant), the ID in practice
gets cut our.

> - At worst, a disgruntled developer could change every file (convert all
> tabs to spaces), call this a "contribution" and voila -- the entire
> codebase is irrevocably licensed under BSD.

No, that wouldn't work. Remember how a copyright license works. Let's
say a third party tried to use that code in a Proprietary Version,
and (on request from the ID) failed to produce the source.
The ID could then sue them on the basis they had no license to distribute
the Proprietary Version. If the ID said "but I have a BSD license
from the Contributor", this would NOT act as an effective defence, because
the Contributor did not have title to (or a license sufficient to) grant
a BSD license to the derived work (the version with the spaces rather
than the tabs) - it was dependent upon the ID's own license.

One of the reasons why I am still thinking about it, is because the
above seems difficult to codify in the license, particularly given
one would want to avoid impliedly licensing contributors to do just that.

> If this is the case (and I hope my understanding is off) why would anyone
> buy a commercial license from the ID when they can just obtain it under
> BSD at any time?  (Making BSD contributions optional would help the best
> case, but would have no effect on the worst case.)

Whoa - more than one misunderstanding there. Even under the *CURRENT*
OVPL, any contributed modifications that the ID uses in a Proprietary
Version HAVE to be made available under the OVPL (i.e. source for
free).

The incentives for someone to buy /this/ version from the ID or
indeed anyone else are the normal ones (perhaps support, warranty,
etc.)

All the ID can do "extra" is include those contributions
in their own Propietary Version together with additional code
which they have developed themselves. So, for example, the ID
might have a Proprietary Version with SuperWidget functionality,
and an OVPL version without. Someone might then contribute MetaGizmo
functionality. The ID (and only the ID) can distribute an enhanced
Proprietary Version (with SuperWidget and MetaGizmo functionality),
BUT ONLY IF the ID also makes the MetaGizmo functionality, and a
version using it, available to all under the terms of the license
(i.e. free). Without the license back, the version made available
would have to have the SuperWidget functionality in aswell.

> So again, I hope I'm just misunderstanding the intent of the BSD idea.
> But if the above is accurate, then it's far more extreme than what I'm
> proposing.  If we make section 3.3 opt-out, then:

No, that doesn't work. It does not give certainty, and it does not
achieve the desired objective.


Alex