Subject: Re: OVPL summary
From: David Barrett <dbarrett@quinthar.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2005 12:20:45 -0700

Alex Bligh wrote:
> 
> --On 14 September 2005 10:43 -0700 "Wilson, Andrew" 
> <andrew.wilson@intel.com> 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.

I think there's a range here:

1) OVPL drops 3.3 (pointless -- becomes CDDL)

2) OVPL drops 3.3 but adds an opt-in contributor agreement that can be 
printed, signed, and mailed in (almost pointless; only a negligible 
improvement over current dual licensing)

3) OVPL adjusts 3.3 such that a contributor can somehow signal inclusion 
without needing to print, sign, and lick a stamp (novel in that it 
eliminates paperwork, but doesn't meet my needs)

4) OVPL adjusts 3.3 such that a contributor can somehow signal 
*exclusion* without needing to print, sign, and lick a stamp (my 
preferred option; by default the contributor grant is in effect, but 
special action can negate it)

5) OVPL remains unadjusted and contributor agreement is always in effect


I'd be satisfied with 4 or 5.  1-3 don't fit my needs.  Alex, are you 
saying that only 5 fits your needs?

-david