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

Re: Debian Legal summary of the X-Oz License

On Tue, Mar 02, 2004 at 12:01:44AM +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
> I don't think mentioning who is the author, publisher or copyright 
> holder for the original unmodified software is endorsing the product. 
> Insofar as I am a man on the Clapham Omnibus unable to find a 
> contradiction, that seems reasonable and entirely consistent with 
> permitted acts on a mark. Can you find a single precedent against it?

I think you're right on this.

> No, but the licence should not interact with other related but 
> distinct and not derived works. I'm not sure whether this licence 
> tries to.

> I think you do have the right to appropriate accurate use of those 
> names without explicit permission. From UK's Trade Marks Act 1994, 
> S10(6): "Nothing in the [definition of infringement] shall be 
> construed as preventing the use of a registered trade mark by any 
> person for the purpose of identifying goods or services as those of 
> the proprietor or a licensee."

> I don't think they could, or they would be trying to use copyright law 
> to stop something permitted by trademark law even for registered 
> trademarks.

> I think that "provided" term goes too far. If I wrote "Purchase one of 
> our boxed sets of Foo by X-Oz Technologies" would that breach the 
> copyright licence? Without the clause in the copyright licence, could 
> I do that?
> I think the answers are yes to both, which is why this licence is 
> troublesome.

> Sadly, this clause also seems to define attribution within the 
> prohibited acts.

I think so much of this depends upon what X-Oz's intereptation of this
license means that I'm not going to continue to debate this but rather
seek an explanation from them.  I've emailed them privately asking for
clarification on Clause 4.  I have not asked about Clause 3 since it is
clearly directly copied from the Apache 1.1 license.

> First you write that claiming DFSG compliance is ridiculous, and now 
> you say it's perfectly acceptable?!?

Nope, I've always meant that it was perfectly acceptable.  You just
misunderstood me.

Ben Reser <ben@reser.org>

"Conscience is the inner voice which warns us somebody may be looking."
- H.L. Mencken

Reply to: