Approval request for BXAPL

[Abe Kornelis]

From: Steve Lhomme <steve.lhomme at free.fr>


> 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