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

Re: Please pass judgement on X-Oz licence: free or nay?

On Wed, 2004-08-04 at 13:35, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 03, 2004 at 11:15:09AM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
> > Brian, stop calling the MIT and 3 clause BSD licenses non-free. If
> > anyone needed evidence that debian-legal has become overreaching and
> > useless, it's here.
> Please note that is not a consensus here.

Actually, it was consensus here when the X-Oz license was examined back
in February. Branden Robinson[0] declared the clause in question
non-free, and the final summary posted by Simon Law[1] also referred to
the clause as problematic.

Ben Reser raised objections to the formal summary[2], to which there was
no reply. Since I can't find another summary, the consensus does seem to
have been that the clause was non-free.

I stopped paying attention to that thread because I thought it was a
foregone conclusion that X-Oz was non-free (or at least
GPL-incompatible, making it useless) and because there was way too much
noise about the license at the time for me to follow. I suspect other
people who might have otherwise contributed did the same.

Now, that just means it *was* consensus. If it is no longer consensus
(and it better not be), we need to look at how such an egregious mistake
happened, and how we can prevent it from happening again.

[0] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/02/msg00162.html
[1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/02/msg00229.html
[2] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/02/msg00310.html
Joe Wreschnig <piman@debian.org>

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Reply to: