OVPL and open ownership
Alex Bligh
alex at alex.org.uk
Tue Jul 26 09:33:29 UTC 2005
David,
>>> "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).
>
> Ok, I believe I'm not communicating this point effectively. (Or I'm
> missing something terribly obvious, as I've read everything you've
> written on this list carefully and repeatedly, and I still don't
> understand why 'the whole "option" thing doesn't work'.)
I am nearly there.
> - The current OVPL mandates that contributions be licensed under OVPL.
> This is accomplished without any extra paperwork.
Not quite. Mandates that all contributions be licensed under the OVPL (so
others can use them, provided they comply with Clause 3), and ALSO to the
ID (on a perpetual sublicense, to do whatever he likes with).
> - The "BSD Proposal", as I understand it, mandates that contributions be
> licensed under BSD. This is also accomplished without introducing extra
> paperwork.
Well, either under the OVPL and BSD, or (pretty much equivalently) under
BSD, as a BSD licensee can relicense under any license including the
OVPL.
> What I'm proposing is that the choice of which of these options to take
> is left to the developer (with the OVPL option being the default), and
> worded in such a way that does not introduce extra paperwork. For
> example, you might modify section 3.2 to be:
OK. I didn't understand that bit. I think I now do.
Isn't this achieved equivalently by leaving the OVPL as it is, and
for the contributor to dual-license their modifications to the extent
they own the IPR? [*]
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 3.2. Modifications.
>
> The Modifications that You create or to which You contribute are governed
> by
>
> >>>
> your choice of either the terms of this License or the BSD license, as
> indicated in a manner appropriate to your Your contribution (ie, for
> source code, at the top of new files, or in comments surrounding your
> Modification). If no clear indication of your intent to submit under the
> BSD license is given, it is presumed that you are submitting under the
> terms of this License.
> <<<
>
> You represent that You believe Your Modifications are Your original
> creation(s) and/or You have sufficient rights to grant the rights
> conveyed by this License.
The danger to be avoided is impliedly licensing the contributor to
distribute their modifications under a BSD license when they are
dependent upon the ID grant (this is not the intention) - i.e.
to use your analogy, implying "if you make any modication (e.g.
if you replace all the tabs by spaces), then the resultant modified
files may be distributed by you under a BSD license without following
the terms of clause 3).
> The intent of this is to ensure that developers who are happy with your
> management (or plain lazy) implicitly submit code under the terms of the
> original License. This is based on the assumption that it is *always* in
> the interests of the ID to have contributions submitted under OVPL, and
> thus extra care should be taken to ensure this is the easiest route
> possible.
>
> However, by giving the option of submitting under BSD (without requiring
> any extra contributor agreement), the community is given the right to
> refuse granting the ID privilege on new code.
More accurately, I think, to grant everyone else the same privilege
on new code.
> This is based on the
> assumption that it is *always* to the disadvantage of the ID to have code
> submitted under anything but the OVPL, and thus it's in the ID's interest
> to require explicit action be taken to refuse the ID grant.
Yes. I'm with you. But contributors can just BSD license their
(new) works, and contribute those under dual license, can't they
(i.e. do '*').
What I think Ernest was proposing is either mandating a BSD license
for contributions, or alternatively (and this may be better) forcing
the ID to relicense anything he incorporates into the proprietary version
under a BSD license, allowing others to do the same.
> I guess my confusion is I believe I'm offering a proposal that protects
> the ID's interests better than the "BSD proposal". Either way, whether
> contributions come in under OVPL or BSD, the ID can continue to use them.
> But if they come in under OVPL, then it *also* magnifies the ID's
> exlusive privilege (and the value of his commercial licenses). In other
> words, without losing anything, the ID can gain more.
>
> Thus I'm befuddled as to why you're uninterested in this proposal, as in
> essence I'm trying to say "Rather than just ensuring the ID can use
> contributed code, why not make it so contributed code increases the
> commercial value of the ID's proprietary licenses?" What is the downside
> that is lurking in my blindspot?
I was uninterested before because I didn't understand it :-) I now
do, but I think it can be achieved in practice without modifications
to the current license (which is great, because it's additional
complexity) for those who are worried about contributing OVPL-only
code.
Alex
More information about the License-discuss
mailing list