Re: Debian Legal summary of the X-Oz License
On Tue, Mar 02, 2004 at 06:48:35PM -0500, selussos wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 02, 2004 at 6:38 PM, MJ Ray wrote:
> > Why does this clause attempt to use a copyright licence forbid basic
> > rights granted in most trademark law?
>
> > Why does it speak of "this Software" instead of the more usual
> > "products derived from this Software"?
>
> This clause is also in the X.org license and is found throughout X.
> We chose to be specific because we are the _only_ copyright holder, which
> is not the case, as you will notice, for X.org.
Susan,
I don't think you've answered the specific questions here.
The first question is loaded and very difficult to respond to. Because
it works on the presumption that you are trying to use a copyright
license in a way I don't think you intend.
So let me ask two questions, that are different but cover the questions
above:
1) Would you consider the following language to be equivalent to your
interpretation of Clause 4 of the X-Oz license:
The name X-Oz Technologies may not may be used to endorse or promote
products derived from this software without specific prior written
permission.
(Note that this is the BSD endorsement clause without the language about
contributors names)
2) Would you consider using this language instead of your existing
language for Clause 4 if it would relieve some fears that people have
about your license and resulted in better acceptance and use of your
software?
--
Ben Reser <ben@reser.org>
http://ben.reser.org
"Conscience is the inner voice which warns us somebody may be looking."
- H.L. Mencken
Reply to: