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

Re: Debian Legal summary of the X-Oz License

On 2004-03-02 02:05:54 +0000 Ben Reser <ben@reser.org> wrote:

On Tue, Mar 02, 2004 at 12:01:44AM +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
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.

OK, good luck with that and let us know how you get on. Ideally, they clarify the licence by rewording it. If they publish a clarification contradicting the apparant meaning and we accept that (can we?), I think we have to ask the same of all other users of the clause, including the XFree86 project, which sucks IMO.

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.

It's easy to misunderstand "denying it as DFSG compliant is ridiculous".

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: