Subject: Re: OVPL and open ownership
From: David Barrett <dbarrett@quinthar.com>
Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2005 00:10:58 -0700

Chris Zumbrunn wrote:
> Hmm, David, if you are willing to go this far then you are really moving 
> away from what the OVPL intents (I don't think making 3.3 optional will 
> be acceptable to Alex's client).

Well, I'm not sure I agree, but I'll wait for Alex to speak to the 
issue.  It's not my intent to change the practical effects of the OVPL 
(copyleft open source community with extra ID privileges).  Rather, it 
was my intent to change the philosophical underpinnings of the license 
to be more open.  So from a principled basis, perhaps it's a big shift, 
but the practical effect is intended to be quite small.  Indeed, there 
should be no practical difference unless the ID loses the faith of the 
community.


> I've been following the discussion all 
> along and your intention seemed not to be adequately addressed by the 
> Copyback license. But with your latest statements you've moved 
> significantly in this direction. The main remaining difference is that 
> the Copyback license also allows others to create proprietary derivative 
> works as long as they fulfill the copyback obligation. In all other 
> regards I think it addresses your original concerns better than what you 
> are proposing now.

I looked on opensource.com, but didn't see the Copyback License 
mentioned.  Is it OSI approved?

But if as you say the Copyback license allows anyone to make prorietary 
derivative works (like BSD), then I don't think it'll work for me.  What 
I'm looking for is a license that binds the open source community with a 
GPL-style copyleft, but gives the ID the exlusive right to create 
proprietary versions.  So far as I can tell, this is essentially the 
goal of OVPL, and my proposal is to satisfy this goal while upholding 
the open source principles.

Regardless, I appreciate the suggestion.  Thanks!

-david