Re: X-Oz Technologies
At 08:39 PM 3/2/2004 -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Tue, Mar 02, 2004 at 05:15:45PM -0500, selussos wrote:
> Thanks for the note Ben and cc'ing me as I am not on the debian-legal
> list. I will discuss the license in the format recommended by the
> OSI and I hope that that clarifies the issues raised and allays all
> First, the license in question, which we have termed the X-Oz license
> can be found in full at: http://www.x-oz.com/licenses.html.
> The first part of the license (the permission notice) is taken from
> the XFree86 1.0 license. The XFree86 1.0 license is the same as the
> X.Org license. Since Debian ships versions of XFree86 under that
> license, we assume it is considered DSFG-free.
> The first three condition clauses are taken from the Apache 1.1
> license, which we again assume to be DSFG-free since Debian ships
> versions of Apache that are subject to that license:
> The fourth condition is from the XFree86 1.0 license:
> And finally our disclaimer notice is also from the Apache 1.1 license.
> THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED ``AS IS'' AND ANY EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED
> WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
> MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED.
> IN NO EVENT SHALL X-OZ TECHNOLOGIES OR ITS CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR
> ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL
> DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE
> GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS
> INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER
> IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR
> OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN
> IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE
> Best Regards and thanks for your concern.
Thanks for identifying the origin of the component parts of your
license; that is indeed useful.
However, X-Oz Technolgies, Inc., is not the Apache Software Foundation,
nor the XFree86 Project, Inc., and X-Oz is at liberty to interpret the
language in your copyright license as it sees fit. X-Oz is not legally
bound by the interpretations -- even of the same precise language -- of
the Apache Software Foundation and XFree86 Project, Inc.
Does debian-legal ask these questions to every copyright holder who _reuses_
an existing and acceptable license? I have read elsewhere on this list that
_intent_ does not matter only the text does and I think that makes sense since
one cannot interpret the license everytime for every reader.