On Tue, 2004-08-03 at 11:34, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: > Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr> writes: > > > On Tue, Aug 03, 2004 at 11:09:24AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: > >> Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr> writes: > >> > > 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. > > No, it's quite different. The Dawes license says: > > DD> Except as contained in this notice, the name of the copyright holder(s) > DD> and author(s) shall not be used in advertising or otherwise to promote > DD> the sale, use or other dealings in this Software without prior written > DD> authorization from the copyright holder(s) and author(s). > > And the BSD license says: > > BSD> Neither the name of the University nor the names of its > BSD> contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived > BSD> from this software without specific prior written permission. > > And the MIT license says: > > MIT> ... that the name of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology > MIT> (M.I.T.) not be used in advertising or publicity pertaining to > MIT> distribution of the software without specific, written prior > MIT> permission. > > So there are some pretty big differences there. First, the BSD > license only limits promotion of software *derived from* the work. And the "DD" license above refers only to" dealings in this Software". It's actually more free than the BSD license, because the restriction only applies to the original software, and the BSD applies it to all derived works. > And the MIT license only talks about promoting *distribution* of the > work. You will need to be more specific about the source of your MIT license; MIT has many licenses, some very closely related. The core XFree license (not written by David Dawes): "Except as contained in this notice, the name of the XFree86 Project 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 XFree86 Project." X Consortium license: "Except as contained in this notice, the name of the X Consortium 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 X Consortium." Open Group License: "Except as contained in this notice, the name of The Open Group 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 Open Group." Let's top it off with the license Debian's X packaging scripts are under, why don't we?: "Except as contained in this notice, the name of Software in the Public Interest, Inc. shall not be used in advertising or otherwise to promote the sale, use or other dealings in this Software without prior written authorization from Software in the Public Interest, Inc." > It's not just non-free; it's not practical to work with such > restricted software. As much fun as it would be to describe X as "not practical to work with", you're flat out wrong. Please do reading and research before continuing this thread. -- Joe Wreschnig <piman@debian.org>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part