[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Debian Legal summary of the X-Oz License

On 2004-03-03 03:28:38 +0000 Ben Reser <ben@reser.org> wrote:

I meant use as in the things Debian wants users to be able to do. Copy, modify, redistribute, etc... Typing out the list can get quite tedious.

So you didn't just mean "use" then? It gets confusing fast if we all use use as if it can use the meaning of another word. ;-)

Which brings me back to why nobody, until I did so yesterday, contacted
the copyright holder.

Available time for this is finite. I prefer to code. That's why my replies are short. I'd not encountered this licence myself before, so hadn't questioned it. People who are concerned with these things need to take part. I think that's what you do.

Okay I'm using confusing terminology.  You're right.  It's not giving
you any right.  I'm thinking of Clause 4 more of as an covenant not to
sue you for trademark infringement simply by complying with the license.

No, it's a condition that the recipient has to comply with to get copyright permission. It looks like a fairly vanilla and hard-to-enforce notice changed into a troublesome restriction.

I have one sitting in my email box that I think meets that. But I think
it's better if they give it to you directly. [...]

"Redo my work, Branden"?

But once license
clauses are in common use, people are going to propogate them to other

Is there a licence in Debian that is conditional on X-Oz's clause 4 wording?

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: