OVPL summary

[Chuck Swiger]

David Barrett wrote:
> Michael Bernstein wrote:
>> But what about the fact that any *private* changes you make to the
>> software can be demanded by the ID and incorporated into both their
>> proprietary version *and* the public version, regardless of your wishes?
> 
> I thought we went down this path already and found this to be a red 
> herring.

I agree that we went down this path already; I believe the issue of private 
modifications is a concern, but not one which is specific to the OVPL.

> It was my impression that the OVPL's "distribution" 
> requirements are no different than the typical licenses:
> 
> - If you distribute to anyone, you must distribute to everyone (ID too)
> - If you distribute to no one, you needn't distribute to anyone (nor ID)
> - Therefore ID has no greater access to your changes than anyone else.
> 
> If this isn't right, can somebody summarize with similar brevity?

Thanks-- this seems to be a good summary.

I just saw Ian's response.  What the OVPL seems to forbid is people beyond the 
ID [1] creating a "private fork" of the code which is only distributed to some 
people and not to everyone, whereas the GPL allows you to redistribute the 
combination of source and binary with some changes privately.

While I prefer the GPL's position to that of the OVPL, I would agree with Ian's 
conclusion: "The OVPL arguably violates that freedom, although I don't see that 
it violates the OSD."

-- 
-Chuck

[1]: Since the ID always has the right to create a "private fork" of their code 
under different license terms, the OVPL does not seem different from MySQL's 
dual-licensing position with the GPL, or that of TrollTech and the QPL, etc.