Re: Debian Legal summary of the X-Oz License (Proposed)
On Mon, Feb 23, 2004 at 12:46:24AM +0000, Henning Makholm wrote:
> I am not so sure anymore, after Branden has testified [:-)] that the
> author has explicitly refused to change it to a more conventional and
> unambiguous. Given that it's certainly *possible* to interpret the
> clause as meaning something nasty, I think we shouldn't touch it with
> a poker until and unless the author officially endorces a clear and
> clearly DFSG-free interpretation of the clause.
Hmm... It does depend on what the author intends. I suppose I
could change my summary to say that we think this clause is DFSG-free if
the license text is considered end-user documentation.
But of course, this leads to an interesting discussion. Does
Debian Legal consider the four-clause BSD license to be DFSG-free? Does
it violate DFSG 9? Or is it grandfathered in by DFSG 10? Note that
DFSG 10 does not indicate _which_ BSD license it is talking about.