Subject: RE: OVPL - wrap-up of objections
From: "Wilson, Andrew" <andrew.wilson@intel.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2005 16:41:32 -0700

 Thu, 21 Jul 2005 16:41:32 -0700
 
Alex Bligh wrote:

> Hmmm... this is a very interesting idea. I shall think some more on
this.
> Can I check we are on the same lines here, Andrew. What I *think*
> Ernest is proposing (and you are OK with) is the following.
> 
> Where a contributor distributes or otherwise makes available
Modifications,
> an additional BSD-style license is granted (to anyone) to use the
> the IPR in the modification.

Yes, that was Ernest's proposal as I understood it.  So, stating the
same thing another way, OVPL could state that Modifications to
OVPL code must be dual-licensed OVPL/BSD.  {Or your choice of any BSD 
equivalent license.}

You are somewhat diluting the copyleftness of OVPL when you do this,
but, it's your license, and if that's OK with you, then it's your call.

Re: the "submarine modifications" problem, you could also modify OVPL
to state that Modifications *must* be posted to a public Web site for
some minimum
period of time (say 12 months).  That way, a sufficiently motivated ID
could build a web crawler that would find all Modifications.

This is indeed an interesting proposal that has many good qualities.  
Of course, as I stated in my initial
wrap-up, you could remove both of my objections to OVPL as it is today
with a snip here and a snip there.  Make sec. 3.3 optional, and
establish an audit trail by saying contributors can opt in to 3.3 by
sending a signed copy of the agreement to the ID.

Andy Wilson
Intel Open Source Technology Center