[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, Aug 02, 2004 at 05:50:08PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Daniel Stone <daniels@debian.org> wrote:
> > However, on the release call today, it was alleged that the code was
> > actually DFSG-free, and that the so-called 'X-Oz licence' bore no legal
> > problems whatsoever, and would be fine to go into main, or whatever[2].
> I'm a little confused here. There's an X-Oz licence that is almost
> identical to the XFree 1.1 license, and then there's what you've quoted
> at the bottom of this mail. This:

Welcome to the confusing morass of X licencing. I recommend vodka.

> > [XFree86 1.0 licence]
> all seems harmless. If all the files in question have this text and
> there's no reason to believe that they've been doctored to do so, then I
> can't see any problems.

Cheers dude.

It turns out that the initial diffs from the X-Oz site contained the
1.1ish licence, but this does not, hence Branden/Nathaniel's confusion;
I thought that there had to be some fire to back the smoke up. :)

Daniel Stone                                                <daniels@debian.org>
Debian: the universal operating system                     http://www.debian.org

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: