Subject: Re: Are implicit dual-licensing agreements inherently anti-open?
From: David Barrett <dbarrett@quinthar.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 15:08:26 -0700

Alex Bligh wrote:
> We had hoped the FAQ:
>  <http://openvendor.org/kb.x?T=7>
> and the rationale
>  <http://openvendor.org/kb.x?T=15>
> would do this. I will see if I can add some more to them or simplify
> them as they obviously do not. 

They're good, don't get me wrong.  But in my case, I still felt they 
were confusing and overly precise/technical.  I mean, imagine that you 
have a buddy who's a typical open-source developer, and he asks you "how 
is the OVPL different than the GPL?" You wouldn't say:

"Clause 3.3 of the license gives an additional license grant to the 
Initial Developer to use any modifications a contributor distributes in 
future versions of the licensed software, whether distributed under this 
license or any other license."

Rather, you'd say something like:

"For contributors it's about the same.  You can use, modify, 
redistribute, blah blah.  The big difference is that with the OVPL, the 
initial developer has the right to sell the codebase -- including your 
contributions -- under a closed license."

Just take whatever that off-the-cuff elevator pitch is, and write it down.


 > Note it's not quite like the GPL,
> it's much more like the CDDL/MPL.

In a precise sense, that's true.  To Joe Coder (or, at least, to David 
Barrett), the practical differences are negilible (you might disagree, 
but I'm merely stating my perception).  That, and until this discussion 
I'd never paid attention to the MPL and never heard of the CDDL.  If 
you're going to say "it's like X but different in Y way", it makes sense 
to pick the X that is most well known -- in this case, the GPL.

-david