[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Please pass judgement on X-Oz licence: free or nay?



On Tue, 2004-08-03 at 15:02, Simon Law wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 03, 2004 at 05:15:16PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > Joe Wreschnig <piman@debian.org> wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2004-08-03 at 09:31, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> > >> On Mon, Aug 02, 2004 at 09:03:33PM +0000, Jim Marhaus wrote:
> > >> > "Debian Legal summary of the X-Oz License"
> > >> > http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/02/msg00229.html
> > >>
> > >> Clause 4 of the license posted at the start of this thread is, with the
> > >> execption of whos names it protects, word-for-word identical.
> > >>
> > >> Am I missing something?
> > > 
> > > Yes. Clause 3 is the GPL-incompatible non-free one. Clause 4 is standard
> > > boilerplate, found in many licenses (it's also superfluous, being
> > > written into copyright by default in US law).
> > 
> > The summary claims that clause 4 makes the license non-free. Since
> > clause 4 is identical to what's contained in the X11 license, it makes
> > it difficult to take the summary terribly seriously.
> 
> 	Read more carefully.
> 
> 	Clause 4 of the X-Oz license is a condition on "rights to use,
> copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies
> of the Software".

You read more carefully.

The XFree86 license (/usr/share/doc/xserver-xfree86/copyright):
"Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a
copy of this software and associated documentation files (the
"Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including
without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish,
distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to
permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to
the following conditions:"

It's the *same wording*. It's also used on the X Consortium license, and
Debian's packaging scripts, and the Open Group license.

The X-Oz license is non-free and GPL-incompatible because of clause 3,
not clause 4. The "X-Oz" license that Daniel posted that started this
thread is *exactly the same* as the license of the rest of X, including
Debian-specific bits.
-- 
Joe Wreschnig <piman@debian.org>

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part


Reply to: