On Sat, Mar 27, 2004 at 09:24:22AM +0000, MJ Ray wrote: > 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. I agree. > 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? I don't think any code under this license should be permitted into Debian main until the license's meaning has been clarified by the copyright holder(s) using it. As far as I know, the only copyright holder using the X-Oz license is X-Oz Technologies, Inc. There isn't really a next step until and unless X-Oz chooses to respond to our questions. -- G. Branden Robinson | Debian GNU/Linux | Please do not look directly into branden@debian.org | laser with remaining eye. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature