Subject: RE: For Approval: MindTree Public License
From: Alex Bligh <alex@alex.org.uk>
Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2005 19:54:49 +0100



--On 15 October 2005 07:56 -0700 Michael Bernstein <webmaven@cox.net> wrote:

> Can anyone else not see the problems with this?

The reasons why us OVPL folks did not do it this way is

a) it seemed unfair to deprive the author of the rights of copyright (even
   if one isn't an OVPL fan, one must admit it is fairer to require a
   license of your code in return for a license to mine, than an assignment
   of all your IP rights in return for a copyright license).

b) it's not enforceable in many jurisdictions anyway (including the US
   where AIUI a copyright assignment has to be made by written instrument -
   though IIRC not an agreement to grant an assignment, but then this
   isn't a contract), which quite possibly leaves the ID with nothing.

We tried quite hard to make the OVPL a fair balance. Based on comments
thus-far (I admit I haven't read the license) the MT license is rather more
one-sided. I also believe it would be ineffective. That said, I can't
actually find an OSD term it breaks.

Alex