Re: powerEXT - Clarifications from the author

I guess I would say because it is two different scenarios and is probably
worded that way based on issues in the past. In the contributor case, code
is being given to an entity where they want to make sure it doesn't cause
issues down stream, and the other is Zend saying "do with it what you want,
just make sure we get credit and we don't provide a warranty".

If I am understanding you right, you aren't saying it is bad, you are just
curious to know if they are different and if there might be some hidden
agenda?

Aaron Bartell


On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 10:50 AM, Nathan Andelin <nandelin@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

From: Aaron Bartell

In what way does the contributor, who made the choice to
contribute, get the short end of the stick?

Well, that may be a different discussion for a different day. My point was
that the public license purposefully does not include language like:

"Grant of Copyright License. Subject to the terms and conditions of this
Agreement, You hereby
grant to the Company and to recipients of software distributed by the
Company a perpetual,
worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable copyright
license to reproduce,
prepare derivative works of, publicly display, publicly perform,
sublicense, and distribute Your
Contributions and such derivative works."

With emphasis on:

"PERPETUAL, WORLDWIDE, NON-EXCLUSIVE, NO-CHARGE, ROYALTY-FREE, IRREVOCABLE
COPYRIGHT LICENSE"

Zend requires that type of license from contributors - but doesn't offer
that type of license to the public. Why the difference?

Nathan.