To recap, when: * We know the license author is aware of existing licenses; and* The license author doesn't explain exactly how those existing licensesare deficient; and * The license author doesn't explain how the new license works, incontrast to the deficient licenses used to construct the new license,...then I do not think we can accept that new license as DFSG-free if there is any DFSG-freeness defect or ambiguity on its face. That appears to be the case with the X-Oz and XFree86 1.1 licenses.
As you know, I think changing a simple statement into one of the condition clauses is a substantial change in these new licences, apparently not shared by any other.
We last heard from a representative of X-Oz, selussos <mgr@x-oz.com>, on 7 March. In the messages that day (apart from accusations about -legal contributors motives), she indicated that the X-Oz licence needs US copyright law and "fair use" doctrine to meet some basic DFSG ideas. She also wrote that she "will be away for several days" but that was 20 days ago. http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/debian-legal-200403/author.html
What are the next steps? -- 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/