From: Alexander Terekhov (terekhov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-12-11 18:09:40
Carl Daniel wrote:
> The IBM license is lengthy and unusual, in that that majority of it appears
> to place restrictions on contributors to, not recipeients of the software.
1. Company X contributes the initial code and documentation distributed
under the CPL. For example, the initial Eclipse code was contributed
by IBM. Therefore, under the CPL, IBM is the initial Contributor and
the initial Eclipse code is referred to both as IBM's Contribution,
the initial code, and the Program.
2. Company A redistributes the Program without changing or adding to it.
Under the CPL, Company A is considered a Contributor.
3. Company A changes or adds to the Program. Company A is a subsequent
Contributor and the change or addition is a Contribution and becomes
part of the Program.
4. Company A creates a software module to be distributed in conjunction
with the Program under its own license agreement. The module is not
derived from the Program itself. The software module is not
considered a Contribution and is not subject to the terms of the CPL.
5. Company B downloads the Program from the Eclipse.org Web site.
Company B is a Recipient. Under the terms of the CPL, each
Contributor grants to Company B and other Recipients a royalty-free
license to the Contributor's Contributions to the Program.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk