Approval request for BXAPL

[Forrest J. Cavalier III]

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.

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?)

-----------

Is it your position that contributing software to the original copyright
holder is not "distribution."?  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."?




--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3