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