Re: Please pass judgement on X-Oz licence: free or nay?
On Tue, Aug 03, 2004 at 11:09:24AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr> 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.
As said, it is mostly the plain X/MIT licence, so if it is non-free, we are in
deep trouble. Please go ahead and fill the bug report asking for the removal
of XFree86 from debian/main.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: