OVPL and open ownership

[Alex Bligh]

> However, it sounds now like your goal is to maximize the proprietary
> usability of contributions, while maintaining exclusive proprietary
> distrubtion rights over your own code.  In other words, the bargain is:
>
> 	"You must contribute in a way that allows me to make proprietary
> versions.  However, the code I contribute will only allow me to make
> proprietary versions."

Nearly. It is:
"If you distribute code at all, you must do so in a manner that allows me
to make Proprietary Versions that use it, provided I also make your code
available as contributions available to the general public. However, if I
develop code, I can either use it in my Proprietary Versions, or contribute
it to the code base. Note that if you offer to make your source code
available under this license, that doesn't a Proprietary Version".

> The downside is the value of of your commercial license is
> limited to solely your contribution (minus whatever is "effectively
> converted" to BSD through extensive contributor modification).

Well, the ID gets value from the contributors too (clearly). But
you are right that the only DIFFERENCE is what the ID did themselves.

> 	"What if rather than requiring that the community contribute under BSD,
> they were given the *option* to contribute under BSD?"

They can do that anyway, just by dual licensing, unless I'm missing
something.

However, as I wrote before, the whole "option" thing doesn't work
(or rather doesn't add more than a "normal" license with an option
to license back as a separate document).

Alex