Subject: Re: OVPL - wrap-up of objections
From: David Barrett <dbarrett@quinthar.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2005 17:08:45 -0700

Wilson, Andrew wrote:
> 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.

Wouldn't making 3.3 optional be essentially the same as just removing 
it?  It goes without saying that contributors can execute agreements 
with the initial developer.  This is the same for all licenses.  Without 
3.3, the OVPL has no real differentiation.

The point of the OVPL (as I see it) is to mandate a contributor 
agreement in as strong a fashion as possible, recognizing that it's not 
legally enforceable to mandate copyright assignment (which the OVPL 
explicitly does *not* attempt).

-david