On 2004-08-09 05:35:10 +0100 Joe Wreschnig <piman@debian.org> wrote:
Clause 4 -- which you declared non-free in that thread *before* public conversations with X-Oz, and Brian declared non-free at the start of this thread -- is identical to that used in the existing X license.
It can be read as a simple assertion in the X licence http://www.x.org/Downloads_terms.html (which seems to be how most copyright holders have treated it), while the copyright permissions of the X-Oz licence http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/02/msg00154.html clearly depend on it. I don't think it's identical.
I think I explained this to selussos <mgr@x-oz.org> in http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/03/msg00048.html but I got a reply of a Mark Twain quote and an assertion that US law is global and the subthread digressed without resolution. No-one found a licence with a similar *condition* in it.
The summary http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/02/msg00229.html may have bugs and need updating, but I doubt the ultimate outcome will be different: software under the X-Oz licence does not clearly follow DFSG.
-- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and not of any group I know http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ for creative copyleft computing Please email about: BT alternative for line rental+DSL; Education on SMEs+EU FP6; office filing that works fast