Re: Please pass judgement on X-Oz licence: free or nay?
Sven Luther <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
>> > * Except as contained in this notice, the name of the copyright holder(s)
>> > * and author(s) shall not be used in advertising or otherwise to promote
>> > * the sale, use or other dealings in this Software without prior written
>> > * authorization from the copyright holder(s) and author(s).
>> That's clearly GPL-incompatible -- I don't know that that's a problem
>> for the relevant code, but I'd imagine it would be for *some* X code.
> Huh ? It just says that you are not allowed to use the name of the author for
> promotion and such ? How is that GPL incompatible ?
It's an additional restriction, and thus conflicts with GPL 6.
>> I think it's right on the border of freedom, but on the non-free side
>> of that border. It prohibits some true statements -- if I'm trying to
>> sell some kiosk to a third party, and he asks me who wrote the
>> autoconfig code, I *can't tell him*. That seems pretty weird, in a
>> situation in which I allegedly have freedom.
> Well you could tell him to look at the copyright notice of the software ?
Yes, I could, but I can't make some true statements! That can't be free.
>> I can't even put "Copyright 2004 Ben Bitdiddle, some parts Copyright
>> 200x David Dawes" in there. Heck, I can't even write this message,
>> talking about how great X.Org's software is and how much I love the
>> autoconfig stuff by David Dawes! This very paragraph violates that
> No, i think you exagerate. The prohibition is in advertizing and promotion, so
> what you are barred to do is release flyers or software boxes/CD covers with a
> "Written by David Dawes" on it.
Yes. I can't put a copyright notice on the outside of the package,
for example, unless it's a copy of this entire notice.
It very clearly prohibits the use of the name of the copyright holder
to promote the *use or other dealings* in the software. So I can't
even file an RFP for software under this license which mentions the
copyright holder's name, because that's promoting dealing in the
> Seems similar to " you can use, modify, distribute, whatever, except you have
> to rename the software and not use the trademarked name or something such",
> except that would be even more constraining.
And indeed, that's non-free --- solely because it also bans using the
trademarked name in other contexts.
Brian Sniffen email@example.com