Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Enrahim2" data-source="post: 8916236" data-attributes="member: 7039850">I don't immediately see how this knowledge element prohibits an interpretation of collective licensing. After all the openess of the license by it's very nature mean that at least one part of the legal arangement need to be explicitly aware of the other. In your example A do not to be aware of B.Similarly it is clear that someone licensing a work need to be aware of at least one person that offer the license, and that there is an obvious legal relationship between those presenting the offer(s) they accept and the licensee. It is however not obvious to me that this should by necessity eliminate the posibility of there being a legal relationship with other members of the (potential) collective described in the definition of "Contributors".It is for instance not obvious to me that A is unable to invoke section 13 on behalf of the contributors if they find D to be in breach of the terms in order to preserve the integrity of the license they rely on.I agree that the reading you describe make sense, but there seem to be more principles than what you present that need to be at work to decisively refute the alternative interpretation.</blockquote>