Re: Debian Legal summary of the X-Oz License
On 2004-03-01 18:35:13 +0000 Ben Reser <ben@reser.org> wrote:
Did you read the license we're talking about?
I was referring to
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/debian-legal-200402/msg00154.html
at the time, so I'm a bit puzzled how I got confused at 1130. Excess
coffee, perhaps. What's your excuse for not following the debian list
code of conduct?
That said, I was told at FOSDEM by someone who should know that the
current X-Oz licence was the same as the XFree86 1.1 licence modulo
the copyright holder and that was given as an argument for 1.1 being
used. I guess I'm not the only confused person.
However, I don't think that license is really any worse.
If you are going to chastise me for going OT, please keep to the topic
yourself.
Indeed. For something as basic as X, that should kill our enthusiasm
for
this.
But being GPL-compatable has *NOTHING* to do with being DFSG compliant
I didn't say that it did. Stop arguing against a point I didn't make.
Just about any use other than saying negative things about the
software
can be considered to endorse or promote products. So already what
you're allowed to use the marks to do is pretty widely restricted.
Can you quote law or precedent for that, please? It seems
counter-intuitive, yet is the cornerstone of your argument.
[...]
4. The names "Apache" and "Apache Software Foundation" must not be
used
to endorse or promote products derived from this software without
prior
written permission. For written permission, please contact
apache@apache.org.
Just about any use other than saying negative things about the
software
can be considered to endorse or promote products. So already what
you're allowed to use the marks to do is pretty widely restricted.
The restriction only applies to derived works, or did you miss that?
In the X-Oz licence, it applies to the software itself.
Remember, Apache is the name of the software here, not just the name
of
the producer.
That is only true in one case and even then, its full name is "Apache
HTTP Server".
So what does the clause really prevent you from doing? Using those
two
marks without permission. Neither of which you have a particularly
good
reason to need to use anyway. They aren't the name of the software.
Does the clause prevent you from describing the origin of the
software, even unmodified, apart from the software itself?
[...]
Clause 3 is simply asking for
acknowledgement, which denying as being DFSG compliant is ridiculous.
Huh? Did you mean to agree with the objectors?
Clause 4 is about asking you not to use their name without permission.
It's compelling, not asking. I doubt any would be upset about a
request.
Let's assume that Clause 4 doesn't even exist in the license now. Can
the author still sue you into oblivion for using his trademarks? You
betcha.
I suspect the problem is just that 4 makes it overt that we are faced
with a hostile trademark use. In other cases, we probably would have
to be faced with the enforced trademark before ruling it non-free.
--
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: