Subject: RE: Change ot topic, back to OVPL
From: "Wilson, Andrew" <andrew.wilson@intel.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2005 15:13:01 -0700

 Wed, 24 Aug 2005 15:13:01 -0700
 

David Barrett wrote: 

> Wilson, Andrew wrote:
>> Brian, the mandatory license back in OVPL ("all your base are belong
>> to us") is section 3.3.  Under 3.3,
>> the ID can actually write a letter demanding that you cough up all
>> Modifications you've made to the base code.
>> You might want to take a look:
>> http://openvendor.org/Licenses/Open Vendor Public License
>
> Alex, is this true?  It was my impression that developers could create

> and use *undistributed* private derivatives (and no-one, including the

> initial developer, can demand them), but once they're "distributed" in

> some form than anyone can demand them equally.

While waiting for Alex to respond (which I'm sure he will), let me
explain my reading.  Sec. 3.3 gives the ID, and only the ID,
the right to demand the source for all Licensed Modifications.  Per
the definitions, a Licensed Modification is a Modification which
"You contribute, distribute, or otherwise make available."
In the absence of a further definition of "make available," in the US,
the ordinary dictionary definition of the phrase would apply.  You tell
me: if I
create an enhanced version of OVPL code and put it on my company's
internal server, have I made it available?

If the intention is to give the ID rights to demand only
externally-distributed Modifications, the definition of Licensed
Modification could easily be changed to say that explicitly.

Andy Wilson
Intel Open Source Technology Center