OVPL and open ownership

[Chris Zumbrunn]

On Jul 26, 2005, at 6:21 PM, Alex Bligh wrote:

> --On 26 July 2005 17:44 +0200 Chris Zumbrunn <chris at czv.com> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> I don't think that is correct. If it was, this would effectively 
> mandate
> that all OSD approved licenses prohibited dual licensing by the ID
> and by contributors.

Why? I do not see a problem as long as there is no asymmetry inside the 
open source license. Dual-licensing works around this outside the scope 
of the OSI approved licenses.

> As I understand OSD #3 is saying that the contributions MUST be 
> available
> under "the same terms as the license of the original software"
> (that's the OVPL with the specified ID). It doesn't say they mustn't be
> available on other terms as well (for instance more favourable terms).
> Clearly, anything licensed on BSD terms is going to be available under
> any OSI approved license.

No, no, no. If your reading would be correct, any BSD-ish licensed code 
would be total copy-left far beyond the GPL. Surely you know that you 
are not required to distribute a BSD-derivative work under the BSD 
license :-)  Generally, you can sublicense your derivative work in any 
way that complies with the license of the original work.

The way I read OSD #3, it is saying that the contributors must have the 
right to distribute their modifications under the same terms as the 
initial contributor distributed the initial contribution under. 
Meaning, they do not have to grant the initial contributor anything 
that he did not grant them.

>>>> 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?
>
> No.
>
> In the "make all contributions subject to the OVPL but make the ID
> sublicense as BSD if he uses them in a proprietary version" model, the 
> ID
> only needs to make a BSD-esque grant if he makes use of the 3.3 grant. 
> If
> he does not require the 3.3 grant (because he has copyright, because he
> received a separate out-of-band assignment, because he paid the 
> contributor
> to license him the work, whatever), then he does need to make a BSD
> sublicensed version available.
>
> In the "make all contributions BSD-esque licensed" model (i.e. change 
> the
> contributor grant), the contributor grant would apply to all
> contributibutions other than those made by the ID, and the ID grant by 
> the
> ID. This might seem bizarre until you realize that even without a 
> carve-out
> for the ID as contributor, under 3.3 the ID could relicense the whole 
> thing
> as a "new" OVPL project with the same ID, with the "modifications" 
> forming
> part of the new Original Work (i.e. noone loses anything this way).
>
> If your point is that the latter is ugly, and it's far harder to
> see how it fits the OSD (though I think it does), I agree.

No, my point is just that any of these variations do not eliminate the 
asymmetry between the initial contribution and any subsequent 
contributions. I know the asymmetry in the OVPL is intentional.

> The MPL and (I think) the CDDL (I haven't looked for others) materially
> differentiate between the ID and subsequent contributors - see past
> messages. Granted, not so much as the QPL or the OVPL, but nevertheless
> they do.

In which way do the MPL or CDDL "materially differentiate" between the 
ID and subsequent contributors? The way I see it they make almost no 
differentiation at all when compared with the OVPL. Which past messages 
are you referring to?

Chris