OVPL and open ownership

[Wilson, Andrew]

David Barrett wrote:

> Earlier, Andrew suggested that he'd support the OVPL if 3.3 was simply

> made optional, and contributors could opt-in by signing the license
and 
> mailing it in.  I rejected this in a kneejerk fashion, as it does very

> little to reduce my paperwork overhead or the "stamp-licking burden"
on 
> the contributor.
>
> However, I wonder if you and Andrew would support making the license 
> *opt-out*.

Since you asked -> my question about an opt-out scheme is whether it
creates
a mechanism for irrevocably forking a code base.  I don't see how you
could
have a single file which contains both "with section 3.3" code and
"without section
3.3" code. So, when 3.3 is removed, there is no chance of ever
integrating
the resultant variant with the ID's version (which presumably has 3.3
in place).  A licensing scheme which promotes irrevocable forking
doesn't sound very good to me.

However, if 3.3 is opt-in, it is transparent to me which other
Contributors
have elected to supply Modifications to the ID, and which ones haven't.
All variants are still potentially mixable and usable under OVPL.  Make
sense?

Andy Wilson
Intel Open Source Technology Center