What is the Open Vendor Public License / Open Vendor Lesser Public License?
The Open Vendor Public License (OVPL) and Open Vendor Lesser Public License (OVLPL) are two licenses aimed at encouraging and enabling existing 'closed-source' software vendors to license code under 'open-source' terms, whilst retaining the ability to use the code and modifications made to it under 'closed-source' terms as well.
OK, what is the Open Vendor Public License / Open Vendor Lesser Public License in technical terms?
For those familiar with licensing terminology, the licenses are modern reciprocal licenses, with patent grants and a 'patent peace' clause, and neutral jurisdiction. The licenses provide additional rights to the Initial Developer in respect of contributed modifications. The license is heavily based on the CDDL, which is in turn heavily based on the
MPL. Sun's page documenting the evolution of the CDDL can be found here.
Aren't there enough open source licenses?
Yes. There are, and we recognize the problem of license proliferation. However, none of the existing Open Source Initiative (OSI) approved licenses do quite what this license tries to do. We don't claim this license is for everyone, but for some vendors who have worked thus far only in a 'closed source' environment, this license presents a new opportunity: to produce both closed-source and open-source products, sharing significant proportions of their code based, and thus find a balance between the goals of open source and allowing a business to leverage its intellectual property.
Is the OVPL/OVLPL finished?
No, not yet. We are collecting comments. When we consider it deployable, we will give it version number 1.0.
Is the OVPL/OVLPL OSI approved?
No, not yet. But we have written it with the Open Source Definition in mind. We hope to have it approved by the OSI when it is completed.
Can anyone use the OVPL/OVLPL?
Yes. Anyone may use it in its unmodified form. You do not have to ask our permission. The OVPL/OVLPL is designed to be useful for as many organizations as possible, to minimize license proliferation.
Can anyone use the OVPL/OVLPL in a modified form?
Yes, subject to Clause 4 of the license (which essentially asks you to rename it, and look after your modified version yourself). You do not have to ask our permission.
What is all this about an additional license grant to the Initial Developer? Why would I want to contribute to an open source project under a license with this term in?
Clause 3.3 of the license gives an additional license grant to the Initial Developer to use any modifications a contributor distributes in future versions of the licensed software, whether distributed under this license or any other license.
This allows an Initial Developer to use your contributors in their 'closed-source' product as well. Similar terms exist within the QPL at 3(b), and within the Sun Community Source License at 2.2(b), 3(b).
We acknowledge that some potential contributors might be put off - they may see this as the Initial Developer being allowed to 'unfairly' exploit their contribution.
There are three counter-arguments here:
firstly, in the circumstances in which we envisage the OVPL/OVLPL being used, the Initial Developer would probably not have released the code under an open source license at all, unless they had the 'quid-pro-quo' of being able to benefit from modifications in their closed source variants;
secondly, the Initial Developer can only benefit from this term if the modifications continue to be present in the open-source variant, thus ensuring continued availability to the community;
and thirdly, this allows the Initial Developer to keep the closed-source and open-source variants of a project 'in sync', avoiding file-format and feature incompatibility between variants.
Equally we expect the Initial Developer will in general continue to contribute code to the open-source variant.
I can see the additional license grant has benefits for the Initial Developer. Does it have any benefits to the rest of the Open Source community?
Yes - it makes relicensing, and subsequent dual licensing far easier. The Initial Developer, as he is given an unrestricted license to the code (so long as he continues to make it available under the OVPL/OVLPL) can also sublicense it, including any modifications. This allows the Initial Developer to subsequently decide to license the code under a new license (perhaps the GPL, or a BSD license) without having to contact and gain the permission of each individual contributor. Of course, the software will still be available under the OVPL/OVLPL as an alternative. Many vendors wish to make a transition to Open Source gradually, and this license helps them do that, which in turn helps the Open Source community.
What is the difference between the OVLPL and the OVPL?
The Open Vendor Lesser Public License (OVLPL) is less restrictive than the Open Vendor Public License (OVPL). The difference is similar to the difference between the LGPL and the GPL. The OVLPL is aimed at libraries and toolkits. In essence, unlike the OVPL, you can use an OVLPL library with other open-source projects, without needing to make those projects subject to the OVLPL license.
Your licenses aren't restrictive enough for my company / Your licenses are too restrictive for me to want to contribute. Will you change the license?
Finding a balance is a difficult challenge. We have worked hard to find a good balance between the requirements of the open source community, and requirements of Initial Developers. We have also tried to frame a license that meets both the letter and the spirit of the Open Source Definition. However, we are open to change. Send us an email or discuss your idea on the OSI license-discuss mailing list.
How do subsequent license versions get produced?
Subsequent versions get issued as and when modifications are approved by OpenSource.org, and given a new version number.
I am thinking of using or contributing to a project licensed under Version X of the OVPL/OVLPL, but I see you are now on Version Y (issued after version X). What gives?
In general (but see the answer to the next FAQ), as a licensee, you have the choice of whether to use the version of the license you received, or a subsequent version. Therefore, you are not at risk from license conditions becoming suddenly more onerous (because you can always chose to continue using the license as it was given to you).
I am thinking of becoming an Initial Developer, but I am concerned you might change the license terms in a manner which affects me adversely?
As stated above, in general a licensee has the option of using a later version of the license which is subsequently issued by OpenSource.org. Whilst the licensee is protected from us making the license more onerous as far as he is concerned (as he has the option of whether to use the new license or not), this leaves the potential problem that we might introduce a change which is less favourable to you as an Initial Developer. Obviously, it's not in our interest to make significant changes to the balance of the license, but you might not trust us always to get it right, and we understand that. Therefore, you can elect to license your software under a specific 'static' version of the license. See Clause 4.2 of the OVPL/OVLPL for how, and our example of how to incorporate this into your Software. If we then make a change to the license, you will have to decide whether or not it suits you. If it does, you can relicense the Covered Software yourself (as you are the Initial Developer, and hold a unrestricted sublicensable license) simply by changing the version number next time you do a complete distribution as described above. Because of the additional license grant, there should be no need to contact all the contributors.