1. Don't Cc me, I am on the list. On Wed, 2004-08-04 at 14:59, Sven Luther wrote: > On Wed, Aug 04, 2004 at 02:33:16PM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote: > > 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. > > Just a question, which version of the X-Oz licence does this summary affect ? > The original one, or the later reworked by Dawes one ? > > The one under discussion here seems to be the original one, which is very > similar to the original MIT/X licence. The summary I linked to was about reworked X-Oz license, which is clearly GPL-incompatible and probably non-free. However, clause 4 criticized in the summary is identical to a clause in the license that started this thread, and all the other X licenses, and very similar to the 3-clause BSD license. -- Joe Wreschnig <piman@debian.org>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part