[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Debian Legal summary of the X-Oz License

On 2004-03-01 00:46:12 +0000 Ben Reser <ben@reser.org> wrote:

Actually this is Clause 3 from the Apache Software License version 1.1.

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 itself,
*    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 for this.

[Clause 4]
This is interpretation is seriously reaching.  The Apache license and
the BSD license have similar clauses. I'd argue that the Apache license
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 http://people.debian.org/~asuffield/wrong/dfsg_guidelines.html might 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/ slef@jabber.at
 Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/

Reply to: