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

X-Oz: Next Move, was: Debian Legal summary of the X-Oz License

On 2004-03-27 08:18:00 +0000 Branden Robinson <branden@debian.org> wrote:

To recap, when:

* We know the license author is aware of existing licenses; and
* The license author doesn't explain exactly how those existing licenses
  are deficient; and
* The license author doesn't explain how the new license works, in
contrast 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/

Reply to: