OVPL and open ownership

[Alex Bligh]

David,

> Ok, are you suggesting that this whole
> discussion

The bit about an optional BSD license, yes.

> is moot, because the OVPL as written accomplishes all our
> goals?  To summarize the goals:
>
> 1) The open source community can use, modify, and redistribute the ID's
> code, but cannot create proprietary derivatives.

If by "proprietary derivatives" you mean "proprietary derivatives for
which their is no obligation to make source available under the OVPL"
then yes.

> 2) When the community contributes code, they implicity grant the ID the
> right to create proprietary derivatives.  Assuming they take no further
> action, this grows the body of code to which the ID has the exlusive
> right to create proprietary derivatives.

See above. Also, it isn't "implicit" - it is an explicit license term.
But otherwise, yes.

> 3) However, disgruntled community members can take explicit action to
> deny the ID exclusive proprietary derivative rights to their
> contributions.

I wouldn't characterize them as disgruntled. People who create their
own code (not relying on the work of others) in my book have every
right to chose whatever license they like. If they chose to license
under the BSD license, that's their affair. Sure, the code *can*
then be incorporated into an OVPL project (just like BSD code can
be incorporated into (say) a GPL project). What they can't do is
relicense the ID's code (or for that matter the code of any other
contributor) under the BSD license (pace consideration of Ernest's
idea).

> Goals #1 and #2 are clearly satisfied by the current text of the OVPL.
> It's attempting to support goal #3 that has been the souce of all this
> discussion.
>
> However, are you suggesting that disgruntled contributors *already* have
> the ability to satisfy goal #3 by merely exercising their copyright to
> grant the world an additional license to their contribution under the
> terms of BSD (and thus grant proprietary derivative rights to everyone,
> not just exclusively the ID)?

Yes.

> If so, that's fantastic, and I wish it hadn't taken me so much time
> coming to this understanding.  I started out believing OVPL was fine as
> written, and then came to agree that #3 was a necessary goal, and now I
> see that the OVPL already satisfies it.  Wonderful!
>
> Unless I'm missing something?

Don't think so.

Alex