Re: Please pass judgement on X-Oz licence: free or nay?
On Mon, Aug 02, 2004 at 12:54:15PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> Daniel Stone writes:
> > :
> > /*
> > * Copyright 2003 by David H. Dawes.
> > * Copyright 2003 by X-Oz Technologies.
> > * All rights reserved.
> > *
> > * 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 above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in
> > * all copies or substantial portions of the Software.
> > *
> > * THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR
> > * IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY,
> > * FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL
> > * THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER(S) OR AUTHOR(S) BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR
> > * OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE,
> > * ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR
> > * OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.
> > *
> > * Except as contained in this notice, the name of the copyright holder(s)
> > * and author(s) 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 copyright holder(s) and author(s).
> > *
> > * Author: David Dawes <dawes@XFree86.Org>.
> > */
> This has essentially the same requirements as the three-clause BSD
> license, and looks free. The difference is that the license above
> says "all copies or substantial portions of the Software" where
> three-clause BSD talks about "Redistributions of source code" and
> "Redistributions in binary form." However, the "X-Oz Technologies"
> license has the same problematic advertising clause as the XFree86
> License version 1.1; perhaps the disagreement over Freeness is due
> to confusion about which "X-Oz Technologies" license applies?
I believe even the X-Oz licence did experience the addition of this
problematic clause at some time, so this code could be a pre-change fork or
something ? Daniel, what is in the COPYRIGHT or such file ? Could you paste
that here ?