Re: X-Oz Technologies
On Tue, Mar 02, 2004 at 11:04:35AM -0500, selussos wrote:
> I am responding to this list, since a concerned free software
> enthusiast has told me that several concerns about our license have
> been raised here. I really did not know of this as I, nor any other
> X-Ozzie, had been contacted previous to that first contact about any
> of these concerns.
> If someone would like us to comment on the X-Oz license issues, I will
> gladly do so. Please let me know what the pertinent issues are, as
> you see it, and hopefully I will be able to allay your concerns.
>If you could comment on the issues raised in this email it would be most
>helpful:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/debian-legal-200402/msg00162.html
>Thanks.
--
>Ben Reser <ben@reser.org>
>http://ben.reser.org
>"Conscience is the inner voice which warns us somebody may be looking."
>- H.L. Mencken
Thanks for the note Ben and cc'ing me as I am not on the debian-legal list. I will discuss the license in the format recommended by the OSI and I hope that that clarifies the issues raised
and allays all concerns:
First, the license in question, which we have termed the X-Oz license can be found in full at: http://www.x-oz.com/licenses.html.
The first part of the license (the permission notice) is taken from the XFree86 1.0 license.
The XFree86 1.0 license is the same as the X.Org license. Since Debian ships versions of
XFree86 under that license, we assume it is considered DSFG-free.
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:
The first three condition clauses are taken from the Apache 1.1 license, which we again assume to be DSFG-free since Debian ships versions of Apache that are subject to that license:
1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions, and the following disclaimer
2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution
3. The end-user documentation included with the redistribution, if any, must include the following acknowledgment:
"This product includes software developed by X-Oz Technologies (http://www.x-oz.com/)."
Alternately, this acknowledgment may appear in the software itself, if and wherever such third-party acknowledgments normally appear.
The fourth condition is from the XFree86 1.0 license:
4. Except as contained in this notice, the name of X-Oz Technologies
shall not be used in advertising or otherwise to promote the sale,
use or other dealings in this Software without prior written
authorization from X-Oz Technologies.
And finally our disclaimer notice is also from the Apache 1.1 license.
THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED ``AS IS'' AND ANY EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED
WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED.
IN NO EVENT SHALL X-OZ TECHNOLOGIES OR ITS CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR
ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL
DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE
GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS
INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER
IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR
OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN
IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE
Best Regards and thanks for your concern.
Sue
P.S. The Apache 1.1 is also on the OSI as OSI-compliant, http://www.opensource.org/licenses/apachepl.php
Don't judge each day by the harvest you reap, but by the seeds you plant. - Robert Louis Stevenson
Reply to: