Approval request for BXAPL

[Steve Lhomme]

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...

And I would rather say a Contributor is a Distributor, but not the opposite.

> 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.

> 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."?

Sounds a bit tricky.

I think there shouldn't be a link between Contributor and Distributor. 
Anyone can be one, the other or both.

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