OVPL and open ownership

[Alex Bligh]

--On 26 July 2005 16:43 +0200 Chris Zumbrunn <chris at czv.com> wrote:

>> They can distribute it under the same terms as the original software.
>> The original s/w is distributed under the terms of the OVPL. Am I
>> missing
>> something here?
>
> If you require others to contribute their modifications under a BSD-style
> license then that's not the same terms that the original software was
> distributed under.

I think that's a misread of the OSD. OSD #3 says:

: 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.

: Rationale: The mere ability to read source isn't enough to support
: independent peer review and rapid evolutionary selection. For rapid
: evolution to happen, people need to be able to experiment with and
: redistribute modifications.


The OVPL (as amended) *would* allow them to be distributed under the same
terms as the license as the original software. This is for two reasons:
a) The BSD-esque terms for contributions would form part of the OVPL
b) The contributors would be fully in their rights to distribute
   modifications under the OVPL even if this was not the case - it just
   says they must ALSO be distributed in BSD form.
IE it seems to me that the clause is there to prohibit RESTRICTIONS
on distribution of source, not to prohibit mandatory OPENING of source.

Anyway, the above (slightly semantic) points aside, that's one reason why
if we go with the BSD proposal, one option would be to do it by making a
license back to the original developer (as presently) which is conditional
on the ID making them available under a BSD-esque license - IE if the ID
uses them in a proprietary version, the ID has to make them available under
a BSD-esque license (as opposed to just under the under the OVPL). IE if 
the
ID take special advantage of any code, so can anyone else.

> And if the initial contributor asks that modifications
> by others must be licensed to him for use in proprietary versions but
> other contributors can't do the same then that means they cannot make
> their modifications available under the same terms that the initial
> contributor did.

I don't think so, because even under the current license the ID can only
successefully demand (he can always ask :-) ) such modifications be
licensed to him if he makes them available under the terms of the OVPL.

The question here is "does licensing under an open source license which
accords special privileges to a defined person X constitute a license
'under the same terms' in respect of X and Y?". If the answer to that is
"no", the same applies to (say) the MPL (let alone the QPL) which gives the
ID distinct privileges (but the BSD mod above fixes it to a great extent
for the OVPL). If the answer is "yes", then the existing OVPL is not
problematic in respect of OSD #3 anyway.

Alex