OVPL and open ownership

[Chris Zumbrunn]

On Jul 26, 2005, at 12:46 PM, Alex Bligh wrote:

> --On 26 July 2005 12:18 +0200 Chris Zumbrunn <chris at czv.com> wrote:
>
>>> 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.
>>
>> What do you mean with the last bit "allowing others to do the same"? 
>> That
>> others would be allowed to create proprietary versions as well? 
>> Assuming
>> you do not mean that, requiring contributions to be BSD would still 
>> not
>> fix the "discrimination" that a contributor has to grant rights to 
>> the ID
>> that the ID did not grant to others.
>
> Yes it would. Anyone can do what they like with BSD licensed code. IE
> if contributions were BSD licensed, or if the ID was forced to
> BSD-sublicense any code from Contributions used by the ID in the
> ID's proprietary versions, then ANYONE could build proprietary 
> versions,
> because you can build proprietary versions using BSD code.
>
> (proprietary versions meaning executable versions distributed under
> another license where the distributor is not mandated to make available
> the source).
>
> The only advantage that the ID would retain is that their ORIGINAL
> code would not be BSD-licensed, therefore proprietary versions made
> by others could not include the ID's own code. The extent of this
> restriction depends upon how significant the ID's own code remains
> in the code base. Which is one of the merits of the suggestion.

Yes, but the original code contributed by the ID would not be granted 
to other contributors under the same terms as they are asked to 
contribute their modifications. That discriminates against all other 
contributors.

Or looking at the same problem from another angle: The license must 
allow modifications and derived works, and must allow them to be 
distributed under the same terms as the license of the original 
software. That's term 3 of the OSD. If you tell contributors that they 
cannot distribute their modifications under the same terms as the 
original contributor did with the initial contribution then you are in 
violation of the OSD.

Chris