Re: Debian Legal summary of the X-Oz License
On 2004-03-08 05:59:31 +0000 Ben Reser <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
It does say "conditions" and if you don't consider the warranty
disclaimer and the sentence following it to be conditions then there
would only be one condition. So I'd argue the advertising part of the
XFree86 1.0 license is also a condition (though an oddly placed and
of order condition).
I understood it as having only one condition, from comparison with the
BSD licences, and the pluralisation of condition to be a copying
error. Can someone tell us about how this licence has been interpreted
or enforced in the past?
Unfortunately X-Oz is being less than forthcoming with answering
questions. Which is making it difficult to resolve the problem. [...]
Aye, the evasive replies from X-Oz so far do make them look like they
are trying to leave the door open for changing their interpretation
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/ email@example.com
Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/