OVPL and open ownership

[Alex Bligh]

David,

>> 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.
>
> Basically, you outline a spectrum, with adding "an entire new module" on
> one side (which is contributed under BSD) and adding "a one-line bug fix"
> (which is "in practical terms" (meaning, not technical terms) contributed
> under OVPL) on the other.  There's a *huge and scary range* between these
> extremes where lawyers reign supreme.  As a potential OVPL license user,
> I'm filled with fear, uncertainty, and doubt.

It is a spectrum, but it's no more than the decision you make when you
contribute some of your own code to a GPL project.

Consider the two scenarios:
a) you contribute a 1 line bug fix to change an "&" into a "&&".
b) you contribute an entire new module full of code.

Under (a) you don't (independently of the license given to you by
the GPL of the code you are modifying) own (or have a license to)
IPR on anything particularly useful.

Under (b) you have created your own work. You can release it (or
at least the parts that did not involve modification or use of
the GPL'd code) under an alternate license (if you want), so long as
it does not use the GPL'd code. That is not (usefully) the case under
(a).

Clearly, there is a "spectrum" in between - it's the same "spectrum" I
talked about above. I use the word "spectrum" with caution because
a court will make a binary distinction between the two things.

> My FUD is partially mitigated when you state that a contribution is
> licensed under BSD only if it can "stand alone as an original work".
> Granted this is a judgment call (made by a judge, presumably), but at
> least it gives *some* structure to the decision.
>
> But this mitigation is blown out of the water when you then defend the
> ability to BSD-license only the spaces when converted from tabs.

That was partly facetious - sorry - it's the former (at least in
practical terms). The point is that the latter work depends so heavily
on the former it can only be a modification. You might have some form
of IPR (I suppose) on the process of converting tabs to spaces. But
the point is really not whether you have IPR on the space/tab thing,
it's whether you could lawfully distribute the resultant work in the
absence of a license from the ID (i.e. I think the point as to whether
a third party would additionally need a license grant from you is moot
for the purpose we are discussing here - which is whether a simple
operation (spaces to tabs) obviated the requirement for complying with
the ID's non-BSD grant).

> Overall, I'd summarize your argument (as I am hearing it) as: "Well yes,
> technically, if they replaced all spaces with tabs they could claim BSD
> on the tabs, but really -- who would do that?  And yes, technically, they
> could claim BSD on the one line fix, but again, they probably won't.  I
> mean, how valuable is one line of code?  But if they add a whole module,
> then they will almost certainly claim it under BSD."

No - my argument is "performing modifications on the original work of
the ID may or may not create its own IPR and require a grant from the
modifier, but it does not obviate the requirement for the distributor
of that modified work to comply with the license condition of the
original work; this is different if the contributor creates stand-alone
work which is not a modification of the ID's work, such as a new module".


> To be clear, I'm entirely skeptical of both the logistical feasibility
> and legal clarity of partial-file licensing.

It is not the logisitics I am objecting to. It is the fact that the
ID, by releasing code, seeks to achieve a definite "bargain" with
the community (some may not like it, in which case fine, don't
contribute). By allowing people to opt-out, the "definite" part of
the bargain is reduced, esssentially to tidied-up CDDL level. That
won't do for my client's purposes.

So that's my objection in principle. My objection in practice is that
it's going to be particularly unclear what's covered where. I'd rather
just use CDDL and assignment, for the certainty.

Alex