From: Steve Lhomme <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Forrest J. Cavalier III wrote: > > Abe Kornelius wrote, in part: > > > >>It was intended that "Distributor" designate anyone who redistributes > >>the Software, with or without stuff of his/her own. This would include > >>the Copyright Holder. > >>A "Contributor" was intended to designate anyone who either > >>redistributes the Software, with or without stuff of his/her own, > >>or who supplies home-grown stuff to the Copyright Holder. > >> > >>Thus, as I intended it, a Distributor is *by definition* always > >>a Contributor also, but a Contributor would not be a Distributor > >>if that Contributor does not distribute the Software and/or > >>the homegrown stuff associated with it. > > Seems to go in circle here : > - A "Contributor" was intended to designate anyone who either > redistributes the Software... > - that "Distributor" designate anyone who redistributes the Software... --> Not in a circle. As defined at the moment a Distributor is anyone distributing the Software, and a Contributor is anyone contributing to the Software, either by supplying additional 'stuff' of by distributing it. > And I would rather say a Contributor is a Distributor, but not the opposite. --> I concur that the definitions are prone to misunderstanding. This very discussion proves the point. At some time in the forging of the BXAPL I noticed that nearly all occurrences of Contributor came in the phrase 'Contributors and/or Distributors'. Since the license always has been larger than I wanted it to be it seemed like a good idea to define Contributors as including any Distributors. So that's what I did. Apparently it was not a very good decision. I think I'll have to untangle the definitions and accept an even more unwieldy license text... Anybody got a better idea? > > If so, why did Steve Lhomme write in his message of 4 July: > > > >>A Distributor can be (or not) a Contributor. > > > > (I thought you were working together on writing this license and > > getting OSI approval. Are you disagreeing with each other on this > > point?) > > Yeah we just hoped we clarified all the obscure points together. It > doesn't seem to be the case on this one. --> If it causes confusion so easily, then it really needs mending! > > Is it your position that contributing software to the original copyright > > holder is not "distribution."? --> Exactly. See the definition in paragraph 2, Contributor. http://www.bixoft.nl/english/license.htm#par02a > > What happens when there is more than > > one original copyright holder? Can I send a copy to each and still > > not have it be "Distribution."? > > Sounds a bit tricky. --> Quite indeed. I think the answer is "yes" since you're not supplying it to any User, as defined in par. 2 But I must admit that such a scenario has not crossed my mind when setting up the license. > I think there shouldn't be a link between Contributor and Distributor. > Anyone can be one, the other or both. --> As *currently* defined, you cannot be a Distributor without also being a Contributor, but you might be a Contributor either with or without being a Distributor at the same time. I must admit it is quite counter-intuitive, I nearly put my foot in it myself... Thanks for all of your Contributions, which you have so lavishly Distributed to all the readers of the list ;-) Kind regards, Abe F. Kornelis. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3