Language question

[Abe Kornelis]

Mark, and all others,

I inadvertently setn this mail to Mark only. Sorry for the duplicates Mark.

comments inserted below.

> On Mon, 12 May 2003, Abe Kornelis wrote:
>
> > **** Well, for one thing, I accept contributions provided that I may use
> > them in any version (open-source or other) of the software. In return I
> > accept the obligation to make these contributions available under the
> > original license as well.
>
> This isn't an obligation you have after accepting contributions, though.
> It's a condition on your permission to redistribute the contribution.
>
> It's a subtle distinction, but important.  You dont HAVE unconditional
> permission to distribute contributions, so you cannot give someone else
> such permission.  You only have permission to do so when you publish the
> open-source version as well.
**--> Ok, I see what you're meaning. But I do not really agree.
Distribution of modifications is allowed by the license, provided that
the user allows me to incorporate the modifications in any version
of the software. I do not request authorship, copyrights, or whatever,
just a license to reuse & redistribute the modifications. As a condition
on this license it is stated that such a return license shall hold only
while
I redistribute the modifications in an open-source version of the software.
It is a condition on the return license. Therefore it is an obligation that
I
have to any and all contributors - they allow me to reuse their
modifications,
provided that those modifications remain available in the open-source
domain as well.

> It may be that, as written, nobody can distribute contributions if you
> stop distributing the open-source version.
**--> Seems a bit far-fetched to me. But under your interpretation of the
text this would probably be (technically) correct.

> > If I fail to do the latter I am breaking my promise and not fulfilling
> > my obligations.
>
> Nope, if you fail to do the latter you don't have permission for the
> former, but you have not failed in any obligation.
**--> As stated above, if I reuse a contributor's contribution, I may
do so only while I also incorporate those modifications in an
open-source version. If I do not use your contribution at all, fine.
But if I use your modifications without distributing them in the
open source domain, then I break the condition under which
permission was granted to reuse the modifications. Hence I would
be breaking my obligations.

Now I'm under the impression we may continue to disagree for
another few dozen mails whether it is at all possible for me to
have any obligations at all to contributors, I would still like to
know how the english language denotes the concept of selling
obligations. I would be most grateful if anybody would be
so nice as to give me a clue.

Thanks in advance, Abe Kornelis.



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