Re: Debian Legal summary of the X-Oz License
On Tue, Mar 02, 2004 at 04:37:32PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > 3. The end-user documentation included with the redistribution, if
> > any, must include the following acknowledgment:
> > "This product includes software developed by X-Oz Technologies
> > (http://www.x-oz.com/)."
> > Alternately, this acknowledgment may appear in the software itself,
> > if and wherever such third-party acknowledgments normally appear.
> We find this statement to be a bit confusing. Here are some questions
> that may make it less so for us.
> 1) Can this clause be satisfied simply by including the license text in
> end-user documentation, since the license text includes verbatim the
> required acknowledgement?
> 2) Is there an objective set of characteristics that distinguish
> "end-user" documentation from any other kind of documentation?
> 3) If the answer to 2) is "no", or you if you are unable to think of
> any, would you strike the term "end-user" from the license text, and
> apply the amended license to all of the code copyrighted by X-Oz
> Technologies, Inc. that is currently in public circulation?
> 4) Is it the position of X-Oz Technologies, Inc., that this clause is
> binding upon the licensee even if end-user documentation included with
> the redistribution neither contains, nor is derived from, work
> copyrighted by X-Oz Technologies, Inc., and licensed under these terms?
> [ For example, if I am distributing Vim, the text editor, as well as its
> user manual, on a CD-ROM to someone, and include the source code to the
> XFree86 X server from the XFree86 CVS trunk as of November 2003 on that
> same CD-ROM as a convenience, am I required to modify the Vim
> documentation to include the statement "This product includes software
> developed by X-Oz Technologies (http://www.x-oz.com/)."? ]
> 5) If the answer to 4) is "yes", am I relieved of the obligation of this
> clause of the license if the only end-user documentation I am
> distributing is not copyrighted by me, and I have no license from the
> copyright holder to modify that documentation?
The above questions that Branden asks if answered would probably relieve
the concern with this clause. Can you please reply specifically to
> > 4. Except as contained in this notice, the name of X-Oz Technologies
> > shall not be used in advertising or otherwise to promote the sale,
> > use or other dealings in this Software without prior written
> > authorization from X-Oz Technologies.
> We have some concerns about this clause as well.
> 6) What does "or otherwise" mean? It would seem to include all forms of
> communication other than advertising (examples include magazine reviews,
> blog postings, and so forth).
> 7) What does "or other dealings" mean? It would seem to include all
> activities that can be promoted other than sale or use (examples include
> charitable donations of copies of the software, or the "cooking" of a
> CD-ROM with a copy of the software encoded on it in a microwave oven).
> 8) As far as the participants on the debian-legal mailing list are
> aware, there is no jurisdiction in the world in which a right to use the
> name of a copyright holder for promotional purposes automatically
> attaches to any copyright license, no matter how liberal its terms. Can
> you tell us why X-Oz Technology, Inc., feels this clause is necessary?
I'm going to assume that X-Oz is going to find these questions difficult
to answer because I think they were simply using a clause from the X.org
and XFree86 1.1 license. See my other email with some questions that I
think will be easier to answer and might result in a satesfactory
Ben Reser <firstname.lastname@example.org>
"Conscience is the inner voice which warns us somebody may be looking."
- H.L. Mencken