Are implicit dual-licensing agreements inherently anti-open?

[Wilson, Andrew]

David Barrett wrote:

> Wilson, Andrew wrote:
>> Alex Bligh wrote:
>
>> in which the ID
>> is granted what is effectively right of first refusal to any
>> modifications.
>
> Could you explain further what you mean by "right of first refusal"?
I 
> don't see how the OVPL grants the ID rights to refuse anything.
Indeed, 
> anyone who contributes under the OVPL can:
> 
> 1) Use the modifications
> 2) Redistribute the modifications
> 3) Have other people modify the modifications
>
> In what way does the OVPL enable the ID to refuse modifications in any

> way?  (Other than refuse to personally use or redistribute them, which

> is no different than anyone else.)

By "right of first refusal," in this case I mean
the ID has two special rights.  First is that the ID has the right to
see 
*all* modifications to covered code.  If modifications have not been
posted
to a public place, the ID can send a letter to users of OVPL code
demanding
to see any of their modifications to covered code.  Ordinary users of
OVPL code
do not have this right.  Other reciprocal licenses, e.g. GPL and MPL, do
not give the ID this right.

Second is that if ID elects to incorporate a contributor modification
into
the mainline public version of covered code, the ID then also gets
special
rights to relicense that modification and incorporate it into
proprietary
code.  Other users do not have this right and may use modifications
solely
under OVPL.

Andy Wilson
Intel Open Source Technology Center