Subject: RE: Are implicit dual-licensing agreements inherently anti-open?
From: "Anderson, Kelly" <>
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2005 17:56:16 -0600

 Thu, 21 Jul 2005 17:56:16 -0600
Thanks, your summary made this whole thread make sense to me finally... 

And, I have to admit that this license (and the summary) sure makes a
lot of sense to me as a developer! It fills in a large gap between the
Libertarian free for all of the FSF and the Evil Empire of Redmond... I
sure hope it gets approved as an OSI license.

-Kelly (a Typical code slinger) 	

-----Original Message-----
From: David Barrett [] 

"For contributors, using OVPL'd code is essentially the same as using
GPL'd code.  You can use, modify, and redistribute the code without
restriction, in commercial or non-commercial applications, so long as
you make your modifications available upon request.

The primary difference is that the 'initial developer' is not required
to redistribute modified code, and can at any time relicense the entire
body of code -- including your modifications -- under new terms.  To
repeat, the 'initial developer' can modify your contributions in a
closed version of the software, and is under no obligation to release
the modifications to you.

The overall intent of this is to enable an open-source community to
contribute to a project, without preventing the initial developer -- who
typically has invested and continues to invest much more into the
project than any single contributor -- from selling the code under a
different license in the future."

E-Mail messages may contain viruses, worms, or other malicious code. By reading the
message and opening any attachments, the recipient accepts full responsibility for taking
protective action against such code. Sender is not liable for any loss or damage arising
from this message.

The information in this e-mail is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is
intended solely for the addressee(s). Access to this e-mail by anyone else is unauthorized.