Subject: RE: OVPL summary
From: Alex Bligh <>
Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2005 18:59:15 +0100

--On 14 September 2005 10:43 -0700 "Wilson, Andrew" 
<> wrote:

> I agree.  My concerns about OVPL could be addressed by making sec. 3.3
> optional
> and allowing a licensee to opt in by returning a signed copy to the ID.

Sadly that would not address the fundamental requirement of the license.
IE if we were trying to do that, we'd just use (say) CDDL and copyright
assignment. I think we've already been around the "optional" argument,
and concluded that an OVPL with an optional 3.3 is pointless.