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

Re: X-Oz Technologies

Branden Robinson wrote:

I was unaware that the X-Oz Technolgies license already existed (under a
different name, maybe?).  Can you please direct me to the software
projects that used it before X-Oz did?  I don't mean the individual
parts of the license; I know examples where those have been used.  I
mean the entire license as used by X-Oz (with other copyright holders'
names substituted, of course).  I don't recall that exact license ever
having come up on this list before, and I've been subscribed for a few
years -- but my memory is sadly imperfect.  References to where the Free
Software Foundation, Open Source Initiative, and other organizations
certified it as satisfying their standards would be helpful as well.

I am assuming that the X-Oz Technologies license is not *intended* to be
precisely identical in meaning to the XFree86 1.0 license or Apache 1.1
license, else I expect X-Oz would have simply used one or the other of
those licenses.  I had thought that X-Oz independently developed its
license because neither the XFree86 1.0 nor Apache 1.1 licenses achieved
the desired result.
Sue, There is a principle in hermeneutics that says: there are no useless words. This means, basically: if you want to say the same thing, use the same words. If you don't use the same words, you don't want to say the same thing. Basically, if X-Oz wants the same disposition as Apache Foundation (license v.1.1) /or/ XFree (license v.1.0), it should use the same license; or else, the only real -- and /legal/ -- conclusion is that the disposition is not the same.

 and I think that makes sense since one cannot interpret the license
 everytime for every reader.

I don't think that will be necessary; with luck, X-Oz's answers to the
questions Debian has raised can be dissemenated widely, as this
discussion is taking place in a public forum.  X-Oz certainly has my
permission to quote my correspondence with you on this subject if would
be helpful towards drafting a FAQ about your license, if you'd like to
do that.

You know, this (clarification of the terms of the license) may not be binding, but is a start.


Reply to: