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

Re: Debian Legal summary of the X-Oz License

On Tue, Mar 02, 2004 at 07:41:31PM -0800, Ben Reser wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 02, 2004 at 04:37:32PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > 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.

X-Oz's own interpretation of this clause is important; I wouldn't assume
that X-Oz constructed a license which included language they did not


I personally would be most appreciative of a reply to these questions
(including the 5 previous ones, already sent, which I omitted from this
mail for brevity).  Thanks in advance for taking the time to answer

G. Branden Robinson                |    I reverse the phrase of Voltaire,
Debian GNU/Linux                   |    and say that if God really existed,
branden@debian.org                 |    it would be necessary to abolish
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |    him.             -- Mikhail Bakunin

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: