Jason Wies wrote:
I am concerned that the definition of Contributors in Section 3 applies to two different roles. When a work is submitted to the Licensor, there is an actual contributor, the person who submitted the code to the mailing list/source control system/etc., and there is the person who holds the copyright on the code that the contributor
submitted. These are not the same people if the person submitting the
work got the code from another program or from an open forum.
A. The Licensor and any individual or legal entity that
voluntarily submits to the Licensor a Contribution to the Work are
collectively addressed herein as "Contributors".
C. A Contribution is "submitted" when any form of electronic,
verbal, or written communication is sent to the Licensor,
including but not limited to communication on electronic mailing
lists, source code control systems
Contributor == actual submitter.
A. [...] For legal
entities, the entity making a Contribution and all other entities
that control, are controlled by, or are under common control with
that entity are considered to be a single Contributor. [...]
B. [...] where such modifications and/or additions
to the Work originate from that particular Contributor, or from
some entity acting on behalf of that Contributor.
Contributor == copyright holder.
Suggestions to disambiguate it: - Extend Contributor to include people whose works are incorporated without their knowledge.
first reaction - does not make sense - the contributor must be identifiable - multiple persons is not an identifiable entity
- Break out Contributor and Copyright Holder into separate definitions.
+1
this source reasonable
Cheers, Steve.
This also affect Section 4, since a contributor that doesn't hold copyright to the code can't grant any rights to that work.
Jason Wies
--
Stephen J. McConnell mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
