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

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

On Mon, 2004-08-09 at 03:31, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-08-09 05:35:10 +0100 Joe Wreschnig <piman@debian.org> wrote:
> > Clause 4 -- which you declared non-free in that thread *before* public
> > conversations with X-Oz, and Brian declared non-free at the start of
> > this thread -- is identical to that used in the existing X license.
> It can be read as a simple assertion in the X licence 
> http://www.x.org/Downloads_terms.html (which seems to be how most 
> copyright holders have treated it), while the copyright permissions of 
> the X-Oz licence 
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/02/msg00154.html clearly 
> depend on it. I don't think it's identical.

I don't see the difference. I mean, I see the difference that one can be
read as an "assertion" and the other can be read as a "clause". But I
don't see how that affects any practical or legal conclusions. In other
words, if I write a license like the BSD one, but append "You will wear
a hat on Fridays." I think it will be clear to everyone, including a
judge, that I intend that to be a requirement to use the freedoms set
forth in the license, even though it's just an "assertion" rather than a

> I think I explained this to selussos <mgr@x-oz.org> in 
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/03/msg00048.html but I got a 
> reply of a Mark Twain quote and an assertion that US law is global and 
> the subthread digressed without resolution. No-one found a licence 
> with a similar *condition* in it.

The 3rd clause of the 3 clause BSD license. I made a case elsewhere that
the X wording is actually less restrictive because it only affects the
original software, where the BSD clause affects all derived software.

> The summary http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/02/msg00229.html
> may have bugs and need updating, but I doubt the ultimate outcome will 
> be different: software under the X-Oz licence does not clearly follow 

I agree with you on this; but I think it derives entirely from clause 3.
Joe Wreschnig <piman@debian.org>

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

Reply to: