MS-RL equivalents?

[Matthew Flaschen]

Chris Travers wrote:
>> I disagree.  The phrase "contribution in the software or derivative
>> works of the contribution in the software." implies to me that both
>> would be included, even if contributor A's patch is /after/ B's.
> 
> You need to read this in context with the definitions.

You're right.  I missed that definition.

> This is actually quite narrow.  While the definition of a contribution
> seems broad:
> 'A "contribution" is the original software, or any additions or
> changes to the software.'
> 
> The definition of "contibutor" suggests that this only applies to
> portions licensed by an entity under this license:
> 'A "contributor" is any person that distributes its contribution under
> this license.'

The problem is, "its contribution" isn't defined, "contribution" is.
"Contribution" would be seem to mean what Mozilla Public License calls
"contributor version", which is the program up to and including the
contributor's modification.

It's not clear whether "its contribution" should mean this, or just the
modifications made by the contributor.

The most reasonable (and conservative) interpretation is probably that
"its contribution" only means only the modifications made by the
contributor, though this is narrower than MPL, Apache 2.0, GPLv3, etc.

Matt Flaschen