Re: Debian Legal summary of the X-Oz License
Sail away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover. - Mark Twain.
----- Original Message -----
From: "MJ Ray" <email@example.com>
To: "selussos" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2004 10:42 PM
Subject: Re: Debian Legal summary of the X-Oz License
> On 2004-03-02 23:48:35 +0000 selussos <email@example.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.
That possibly could be your own _personal_ prejudice which is
understandable but I think that U.S. Copyright is fairly well
deployed throughout this world and is internationally recognized.