Re: Debian Legal summary of the X-Oz License
On 2004-03-01 00:46:12 +0000 Ben Reser <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
Actually this is Clause 3 from the Apache Software License version
No, it is not. It is similar, but the wording is worse. Elsewhere were
quoted parts of ASL 1.1, but I think it incomplete that clause 3 was
not. Here it is:
* 3. The end-user documentation included with the redistribution,
* if any, must include the following acknowledgment:
* "This product includes software developed by the
* Apache Software Foundation (http://www.apache.org/)."
* Alternately, this acknowledgment may appear in the software
* if and wherever such third-party acknowledgments normally appear.
For no obvious reason, the X-Oz licence has the lawyerbomb "in the
same form and location" added twice. This could be a symptom of the
problem: X-Oz looks like an obfuscated ASL 1.1. Obfuscation is not a
good trait in a licence author.
It's been well known to be GPL incompatible.
Indeed. For something as basic as X, that should kill our enthusiasm
This is interpretation is seriously reaching. The Apache license and
the BSD license have similar clauses. I'd argue that the Apache
is much broader here actually.
I think the Apache licence is fairly narrow. The X-Oz one includes the
lawyerbomb "or otherwise" in what it forbids and that seems overbroad,
exceeding what a free software licence can do.
Is the clause necessary? In my opinion No. But it has nothing to do
with the DFSG.
http://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html Q8 or
help explain what you're seeing here.
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/ email@example.com
Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/