OVPL and open ownership

[Chris Zumbrunn]

On Jul 27, 2005, at 1:24 AM, David Barrett wrote:

> Chris Zumbrunn wrote:
>> On Jul 26, 2005, at 6:21 PM, Alex Bligh wrote:
>>> 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?
>
> Granted, one interpretation of the OSI principles would forbid any 
> distinction.  However, clearly this isn't the interpretation the OSI 
> is using, so it's a moot argument.  This isn't a debate occurring in a 
> vacuum, and it wasn't some random OSI oversight; the OSI has approved 
> not just one, but multiple licenses that draw this distinction.
>
> Given that, you could still argue that "yes to distinguish between 
> contributors and the initial developer is ok, but the OVPL goes much 
> further than any other".  This is obviously true; indeed, it's the 
> whole reason the OVPL is was proposed.  If the OVPL were nearly the 
> same as the MPL or CDDL, it would be rejected as being too similar.
>
> Now you could further argue that "yes to distinguish between 
> contributors and the initial developer is ok, and the OVPL certainly 
> goes sufficiently far to warrant a new license, but the OVPL goes too 
> far."  And that's a valid opinion too.  But it's not clear that it's 
> the OSI's opinion.

Agreed.

> Personally, I believe it'd be rather disingenuous were the OSI to take 
> the position that it's ok to dual license code, but only if 
> contributor agreements are made unnecessarily hard.  It seems 
> difficult to support the argument that dual licensing is ok, and to 
> acknowledge that the end result of the OVPL is equivalent to 
> collecting contributor agreements, but reject the OVPL because it 
> makes it "too easy".
>
> On the other hand, if you disagree that the end effect of the OVPL is 
> equivalent to a typical dual licensing approach (just with less 
> paperwork), I'd be eager to hear why.

Because if the dual-licensing is not part of the open source license 
itself then it is up to the individual contributors if they want to 
contribute back to the original project under the special conditions 
the ID requires.

Chris