Re: Debian Legal summary of the X-Oz License
- To: selussos <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Cc: email@example.com
- Subject: Re: Debian Legal summary of the X-Oz License
- From: MJ Ray <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2004 03:42:28 +0000
- Message-id: <email@example.com>
- In-reply-to: <024801c400b1$1b18ad70$2a05a8c0@Persephone>
On 2004-03-02 23:48:35 +0000 selussos <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
Why does this clause attempt to use a copyright licence forbid basic
granted in most trademark law? [...]
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,
is not the case, as you will notice, for X.org.
Thanks for letting me clear that one up.
I'm sorry to write that I don't think you answered my question above
at all, but stated a case where the questionable term is in a
different copyright licence.
However, I think the use is significantly different. The copyright
permissions granted by the X.org licence found at
http://www.x.org/Downloads_terms.html do not seem to be conditional on
that term. The permissions of the X-Oz licence are.
Could you please look at the X.org and X-Oz licences again and notice
this difference? If you want to mimic the X.org licence, then will you
make that clause a notice in the footer instead, please? Copyright
licence conditions are the wrong way to police trademarks.
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/ email@example.com
Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/