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