On 2004-03-02 02:05:54 +0000 Ben Reser <ben@reser.org> wrote:
On Tue, Mar 02, 2004 at 12:01:44AM +0000, MJ Ray wrote:Sadly, this clause also seems to define attribution within the prohibited acts.I think so much of this depends upon what X-Oz's intereptation of this license means that I'm not going to continue to debate this but rather seek an explanation from them. I've emailed them privately asking forclarification on Clause 4. I have not asked about Clause 3 since it isclearly directly copied from the Apache 1.1 license.
OK, good luck with that and let us know how you get on. Ideally, they clarify the licence by rewording it. If they publish a clarification contradicting the apparant meaning and we accept that (can we?), I think we have to ask the same of all other users of the clause, including the XFree86 project, which sucks IMO.
First you write that claiming DFSG compliance is ridiculous, and now you say it's perfectly acceptable?!?Nope, I've always meant that it was perfectly acceptable. You just misunderstood me.
It's easy to misunderstand "denying it as DFSG compliant is ridiculous".
-- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know. Please http://remember.to/edit_messages on lists to be sure I read http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ gopher://g.towers.org.uk/ slef@jabber.at Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/