With free licenses, one cannot restrict who or how the software is used.
Suppose that I construct a license that says:
If you are not Steve you are permitted to license under A; if you are Steve then you are permitted to license under B.
Where A and B are both terms that, when considered in isolation, would be free/open.
This means that the software is freely available to everybody at any point, but the exact terms discriminate based on some arbitrary criterion (let's pretend the "you are Steve" part is legally unambiguous).
Is such a license still considered free? Or open source? Both? Neither?
To clarify, because this is indeed a bit confusing:
- This license is not dual licensing; not everyone can license under terms A, nor B; the licensor does not choose which terms to abide, it is dictated by the license itself
- The license itself does not give the right to relicense; a not-Steve cannot fork and redistribute under terms that grant a universal license under A, even to the Steves, and vice versa. The discriminatory mechanism remains, that is, if Steve licenses from not-Steve, then he must follow terms B.