Re: Please pass judgement on X-Oz licence: free or nay?
Daniel Stone writes:
> * Copyright 2003 by David H. Dawes.
> * Copyright 2003 by X-Oz Technologies.
> * All rights reserved.
> * Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a
> * copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"),
> * to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation
> * the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense,
> * and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the
> * Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:
> * The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in
> * all copies or substantial portions of the Software.
> * THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR
> * IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY,
> * FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL
> * THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER(S) OR AUTHOR(S) BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR
> * OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE,
> * ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR
> * OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.
> * Except as contained in this notice, the name of the copyright holder(s)
> * and author(s) shall not be used in advertising or otherwise to promote
> * the sale, use or other dealings in this Software without prior written
> * authorization from the copyright holder(s) and author(s).
> * Author: David Dawes <dawes@XFree86.Org>.
This has essentially the same requirements as the three-clause BSD
license, and looks free. The difference is that the license above
says "all copies or substantial portions of the Software" where
three-clause BSD talks about "Redistributions of source code" and
"Redistributions in binary form." However, the "X-Oz Technologies"
license has the same problematic advertising clause as the XFree86
License version 1.1; perhaps the disagreement over Freeness is due
to confusion about which "X-Oz Technologies" license applies?
(Disclaimer: I am neither a lawyer nor Debian developer.)