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

Re: Debian Legal summary of the X-Oz License

On 2004-03-08 05:59:31 +0000 Ben Reser <ben@reser.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 out
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 various
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 later. :-(

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: