On Tue, Mar 02, 2004 at 09:16:45PM -0500, selussos wrote: > At 08:39 PM 3/2/2004 -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > > 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? No, we generally only look into old licenses when an issue is brought to our attention. I was unaware that the X-Oz Technolgies license already existed (under a different name, maybe?). Can you please direct me to the software projects that used it before X-Oz did? I don't mean the individual parts of the license; I know examples where those have been used. I mean the entire license as used by X-Oz (with other copyright holders' names substituted, of course). I don't recall that exact license ever having come up on this list before, and I've been subscribed for a few years -- but my memory is sadly imperfect. References to where the Free Software Foundation, Open Source Initiative, and other organizations certified it as satisfying their standards would be helpful as well. I am assuming that the X-Oz Technologies license is not *intended* to be precisely identical in meaning to the XFree86 1.0 license or Apache 1.1 license, else I expect X-Oz would have simply used one or the other of those licenses. I had thought that X-Oz independently developed its license because neither the XFree86 1.0 nor Apache 1.1 licenses achieved the desired result. Please do correct me if I've got it wrong! > I have read elsewhere on this list that _intent_ does not matter > only the text does I don't think that's the case. Intent *does* matter, and as I understand it, courts (in the U.S., at least) tend to be protective of copyright holders. Ambiguities in copyright licensing terminology are typically resolved in favor of the copyright holder, because a new license between the holder and those who wish to exercise the privileges reserved to the holder can always be negotiated. Free software/open source licensing is an atypical beast from the traditional perspective, though, as these are licenses that are granted to the general public, not typically negotiated on an individual basis. As I described the part of my message that you omitted, intent *does* matter, and there has been a concrete example of it mattering with the University of Washington's license on PINE. The community interpreted the license one way, and the University of Washington interpreted it another way. Being the copyright holder, the University's interpretation was controlling. It didn't really matter what other people *thought* the license meant, and nobody (as far as I know) was willing to challenge the University's interpretation in court. > and I think that makes sense since one cannot interpret the license > everytime for every reader. I don't think that will be necessary; with luck, X-Oz's answers to the questions Debian has raised can be dissemenated widely, as this discussion is taking place in a public forum. X-Oz certainly has my permission to quote my correspondence with you on this subject if would be helpful towards drafting a FAQ about your license, if you'd like to do that. -- G. Branden Robinson | What cause deserves following if Debian GNU/Linux | its adherents must bury their branden@debian.org | opposition with lies? http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Noel O'Connor
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature