Re: X-Oz Technologies

["selussos" <mgr@x-oz.com>]

At 08:39 PM 3/2/2004 -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:

  On Tue, Mar 02, 2004 at 05:15:45PM -0500, selussos wrote:
  > Thanks for the note Ben and cc'ing me as I am not on the debian-legal
  > list.   I will discuss the license in the format recommended by the
  > OSI and I hope that that clarifies the issues raised and allays all
  > concerns:
  > 
  > First, the license in question, which we have termed the X-Oz license
  > can be found in full at: http://www.x-oz.com/licenses.html.
  > 
  > The first part of the license (the permission notice) is taken from
  > the XFree86 1.0 license.  The XFree86 1.0 license is the same as the
  > X.Org license.  Since Debian ships versions of XFree86 under that
  > license, we assume it is considered DSFG-free.
  [...]
  > The first three condition clauses are taken from the Apache 1.1
  > license, which we again assume to be DSFG-free since Debian ships
  > versions of Apache that are subject to that license:
  [...]
  > The fourth condition is from the XFree86 1.0 license:
  [...]
  > And finally our disclaimer notice is also from the Apache 1.1 license.
  > 
  >   THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED ``AS IS'' AND ANY EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED
  >   WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
  >   MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED.
  >   IN NO EVENT SHALL X-OZ TECHNOLOGIES OR ITS CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR
  >   ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL
  >   DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE
  >   GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS
  >   INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER
  >   IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR
  >   OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN
  >   IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE
  [...]
  > Best Regards and thanks for your concern.

  Thanks for identifying the origin of the component parts of your
  license; that is indeed useful.

  However, X-Oz Technolgies, Inc., is not the Apache Software Foundation,
  nor the XFree86 Project, Inc., and X-Oz is at liberty to interpret the
  language in your copyright license as it sees fit.  X-Oz is not legally
  bound by the interpretations -- even of the same precise language -- of
  the Apache Software Foundation and XFree86 Project, Inc.


  Branden,

  Does debian-legal ask these questions to every copyright holder who _reuses_
  an existing and acceptable license?  I have read elsewhere on this list that 
  _intent_ does not matter only the text does and I think that makes sense since
  one cannot interpret the license everytime for every reader.

  Regards
  Sue