OVPL and open ownership

[Chris Zumbrunn]

On Jul 26, 2005, at 5:10 PM, Alex Bligh wrote:

> 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.

If the terms would be the same then either both the initial contributor 
and all other contributors COULD NOT use others contributions in 
proprietary versions or both the initial contributor and all other 
contributors COULD use others contributions, including the initial 
contribution, in proprietary versions.

> 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.

That would still not treat the initial contribution in the same way as 
contributions by others.

>> 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.

But you're giving special treatment to the initial contribution. And 
what about future contributions by the initial developer? Do they have 
to be BSD-esque as well?

> 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.

Based on the above argumentation, the QPL does not comply with OSD 
terms 3 and 5. I don't think the MPL qualifies as precedence in this 
regard. But certainly, either the approval of the QPL was a mistake or 
it is precedence for approval of the OVPL. It does come back to that, 
of course.

Chris