[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 23:48:35 +0000 selussos <mgr@x-oz.com> wrote:

Why does this clause attempt to use a copyright licence forbid basic rights 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, which
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/ slef@jabber.at
 Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/

Reply to: