dbarrett at quinthar.com
Wed Sep 14 19:20:45 UTC 2005
Alex Bligh wrote:
> --On 14 September 2005 10:43 -0700 "Wilson, Andrew"
> <andrew.wilson at intel.com> wrote:
>> I agree. My concerns about OVPL could be addressed by making sec. 3.3
>> and allowing a licensee to opt in by returning a signed copy to the ID.
> Sadly that would not address the fundamental requirement of the license.
> IE if we were trying to do that, we'd just use (say) CDDL and copyright
> assignment. I think we've already been around the "optional" argument,
> and concluded that an OVPL with an optional 3.3 is pointless.
I think there's a range here:
1) OVPL drops 3.3 (pointless -- becomes CDDL)
2) OVPL drops 3.3 but adds an opt-in contributor agreement that can be
printed, signed, and mailed in (almost pointless; only a negligible
improvement over current dual licensing)
3) OVPL adjusts 3.3 such that a contributor can somehow signal inclusion
without needing to print, sign, and lick a stamp (novel in that it
eliminates paperwork, but doesn't meet my needs)
4) OVPL adjusts 3.3 such that a contributor can somehow signal
*exclusion* without needing to print, sign, and lick a stamp (my
preferred option; by default the contributor grant is in effect, but
special action can negate it)
5) OVPL remains unadjusted and contributor agreement is always in effect
I'd be satisfied with 4 or 5. 1-3 don't fit my needs. Alex, are you
saying that only 5 fits your needs?
More information about the License-discuss