On Sun, Aug 08, 2004 at 11:35:10PM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
Now, I can infer one of three things:
1. You had off-list contact with the X-Oz people before the license was
analyzed here on -legal, and did not communicate their non-standard
interpretation of that clause back to us for the
Matthew Garrett wrote:
The wording of the clause is identical. Are you claiming that the
differing location of it in the license alters the situations that it
applies to?
Absolutely.
In the X11 license:
Permission is hereby granted provided that... and that... appear in
supporting
1. I'm on the list. Please don't Cc me.
2. Don't break threads.
On Mon, 2004-08-09 at 22:36, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Pay more attention. :-)
The warranty disclaimer is not a condition of the license; it's not a
condition of any sort, simply an assertion that there is no warranty.
Now if
Joe Wreschnig wrote:
1. I'm on the list. Please don't Cc me.
All right.
2. Don't break threads.
This is temporarily unavoidable. When I get back to a decent machine
On Mon, 2004-08-09 at 22:36, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Pay more attention. :-)
The warranty disclaimer is not a condition
On Sun, 2004-08-08 at 18:38, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Tue, Aug 03, 2004 at 11:10:44AM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
On Tue, 2004-08-03 at 09:31, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
On Mon, Aug 02, 2004 at 09:03:33PM +, Jim Marhaus wrote:
Debian Legal summary of the X-Oz License
On Sun, 2004-08-08 at 17:44, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Wed, Aug 04, 2004 at 02:33:16PM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
Now, that just means it *was* consensus. If it is no longer consensus
(and it better not be), we need to look at how such an egregious mistake
happened, and how we can prevent
On Sun, 2004-08-08 at 17:57, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Tue, Aug 03, 2004 at 12:20:47PM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
On Tue, 2004-08-03 at 11:15, Matthew Garrett wrote:
The summary claims that clause 4 makes the license non-free.
...because we don't undestand what X-Oz means when they say
On 2004-08-09 05:35:10 +0100 Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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
On 2004-08-09 06:17:17 +0100 Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Since February, -legal has had an official (as official as they get)
document claiming that even without further annoyances from X-Oz that
clause is non-free. Simon Law, who wrote that summary, has since
realized it was a huge
On Mon, 2004-08-09 at 03:31, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-08-09 05:35:10 +0100 Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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
On 2004-08-09 10:38:45 +0100 Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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
Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, 2004-08-09 at 03:31, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-08-09 05:35:10 +0100 Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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
On Mon, 2004-08-09 at 04:59, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-08-09 10:38:45 +0100 Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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
On Mon, 2004-08-09 at 11:02, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, 2004-08-09 at 03:31, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-08-09 05:35:10 +0100 Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Clause 4 -- which you declared non-free in that thread *before* public
On Mon, 2004-08-09 at 03:45, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-08-09 06:17:17 +0100 Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Since February, -legal has had an official (as official as they get)
document claiming that even without further annoyances from X-Oz that
clause is non-free. Simon Law, who
On 2004-08-09 18:07:24 +0100 Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I guess I'm also convinced that just because it's not numbered like it
is in the BSD license, doesn't make it not a clause.
[...] At no point is it obvious to me that the
following conditions is ending and being replaced by
On 2004-08-09 18:26:19 +0100 Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[MJR] summary
guidelines suggest a link back to the DFSG for all problems in clauses
3-4. The list of reasons in Jeremy Hankin's guidelines need not
connect
to the DFSG at all.
Either:
a. I was trying to con debian-legal
Joe Wreschnig wrote in
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/08/msg00200.html:
I guess I'm also convinced that just because it's not numbered like it
is in the BSD license, doesn't make it not a clause. That is, the X
license says Permission is hereby granted... subject to the following
On Wed, Aug 04, 2004 at 02:33:16PM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
Now, that just means it *was* consensus. If it is no longer consensus
(and it better not be), we need to look at how such an egregious mistake
happened, and how we can prevent it from happening again.
On Wed, Aug 04, 2004 at
On Tue, Aug 03, 2004 at 12:20:47PM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
On Tue, 2004-08-03 at 11:15, Matthew Garrett wrote:
The summary claims that clause 4 makes the license non-free.
...because we don't undestand what X-Oz means when they say it.
Since clause 4 is identical to what's contained in
On Wed, Aug 04, 2004 at 01:37:48PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
On Tue, Aug 03, 2004 at 02:01:03AM +1000, Daniel Stone wrote:
/*
* Copyright 2003 by David H. Dawes.
* Copyright 2003 by X-Oz Technologies.
* All rights reserved.
*
* Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to
On Mon, Aug 02, 2004 at 08:09:27PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
So, what happened is that we have autoconfig code available to us under
the XFree86 1.0 (3-clause BSD) licence, which is DFSG-free; this is the
same code that's currently in the X.Org tree, which appeared to form
the core of
On Tue, Aug 03, 2004 at 11:10:44AM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
On Tue, 2004-08-03 at 09:31, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
On Mon, Aug 02, 2004 at 09:03:33PM +, Jim Marhaus wrote:
Debian Legal summary of the X-Oz License
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/02/msg00229.html
[self-followup]
On Sun, Aug 08, 2004 at 06:09:08PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
It is, however, worth noting that many subtle variations of the MIT/X11
license exist. That the traditional MIT/X11 license is (by
general consensus, I daresay) DFSG-free, that any license derived from it
is
On Wed, Aug 04, 2004 at 03:15:26PM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
The summary I linked to was about reworked X-Oz license, which is
clearly GPL-incompatible and probably non-free. However, clause 4
criticized in the summary is identical to a clause in the license that
started this thread, and all
In attempting to respond to a private response:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]: host mail1.radix.net[207.192.128.31] said: 553 5.3.0
Please Use Your Local Server (in reply to MAIL FROM command)
I'm not going to bend over backwards to send mail to this broken server,
which has apparently blacklisted me in an
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In attempting to respond to a private response:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]: host mail1.radix.net[207.192.128.31] said: 553 5.3.0
Please Use Your Local Server (in reply to MAIL FROM command)
oddly enough, that's one of the reasons why I use this account.
(perhaps
On Tue, Aug 03, 2004 at 02:01:03AM +1000, Daniel Stone wrote:
/*
* 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
Robert Millan writes:
On Tue, Aug 03, 2004 at 02:01:03AM +1000, Daniel Stone wrote:
/*
* 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
On Tue, Aug 03, 2004 at 12:34:27PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Those are both much narrower than this license, which talks about
promotion or advertising of use or modification (other dealings) of
the work. So I can't file a bug report and mention the author's name,
because that is
On Tue, Aug 03, 2004 at 11:15:09AM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
Brian, stop calling the MIT and 3 clause BSD licenses non-free. If
anyone needed evidence that debian-legal has become overreaching and
useless, it's here.
Please note that is not a consensus here.
On Wed, Aug 04, 2004 at 01:37:48PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
On Tue, Aug 03, 2004 at 02:01:03AM +1000, Daniel Stone wrote:
/*
* Copyright 2003 by David H. Dawes.
* Copyright 2003 by X-Oz Technologies.
* All rights reserved.
*
* Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to
Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, Aug 03, 2004 at 11:15:09AM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
Brian, stop calling the MIT and 3 clause BSD licenses non-free. If
anyone needed evidence that debian-legal has become overreaching and
useless, it's here.
Please note that is not a
On Wed, 2004-08-04 at 14:17, Ben Pfaff wrote:
Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, Aug 03, 2004 at 11:15:09AM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
Brian, stop calling the MIT and 3 clause BSD licenses non-free. If
anyone needed evidence that debian-legal has become overreaching and
On Wed, Aug 04, 2004 at 02:33:16PM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
On Wed, 2004-08-04 at 13:35, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
On Tue, Aug 03, 2004 at 11:15:09AM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
Brian, stop calling the MIT and 3 clause BSD licenses non-free. If
anyone needed evidence that debian-legal
1. Don't Cc me, I am on the list.
On Wed, 2004-08-04 at 14:59, Sven Luther wrote:
On Wed, Aug 04, 2004 at 02:33:16PM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
On Wed, 2004-08-04 at 13:35, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
On Tue, Aug 03, 2004 at 11:15:09AM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
Brian, stop calling the
* Daniel Stone:
As I'm sure you all know, XFree86 post-4.4RC2 bears a non-DFSG-free
licence, which makes it impossible for Debian to include.
The license appears to be DFSG-free, but incompatible with the GPL.
On Mon, Aug 02, 2004 at 09:03:33PM +, Jim Marhaus wrote:
Debian Legal summary of the X-Oz License
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/02/msg00229.html
Clause 4 of the license posted at the start of this thread is, with the
execption of whos names it protects, word-for-word identical.
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
* 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
On Tue, Aug 03, 2004 at 11:09:24AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
* 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
On Tue, 2004-08-03 at 09:31, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
On Mon, Aug 02, 2004 at 09:03:33PM +, Jim Marhaus wrote:
Debian Legal summary of the X-Oz License
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/02/msg00229.html
Clause 4 of the license posted at the start of this thread is, with the
On Tue, 2004-08-03 at 10:09, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
* 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
Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's an additional restriction, and thus conflicts with GPL 6.
The FSF claim it's GPL compatible
(http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html - the X11 license). You
might want to point it out to them.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 2004-08-03 at 09:31, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
On Mon, Aug 02, 2004 at 09:03:33PM +, Jim Marhaus wrote:
Debian Legal summary of the X-Oz License
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/02/msg00229.html
Clause 4 of the license posted at
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, Aug 03, 2004 at 11:09:24AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
As said, it is mostly the plain X/MIT licence, so if it is non-free, we are in
deep trouble. Please go ahead and fill the bug report asking for
On Tue, Aug 03, 2004 at 12:34:27PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, Aug 03, 2004 at 11:09:24AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
As said, it is mostly the plain X/MIT licence, so if it is non-free,
On Tue, Aug 03, 2004 at 11:15:09AM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
If
anyone needed evidence that debian-legal has become overreaching and
useless, it's here.
I personally thought that would've been in the media-without-source
circus, but there you go.
--
Daniel Stone
Brian Thomas Sniffen writes:
And the MIT license says:
MIT ... that the name of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology
MIT (M.I.T.) not be used in advertising or publicity pertaining to
MIT distribution of the software without specific, written prior
MIT permission.
So there are some
On Tue, 2004-08-03 at 11:34, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, Aug 03, 2004 at 11:09:24AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
As said, it is mostly the plain X/MIT licence, so if it is non-free, we are
in
On Tue, 2004-08-03 at 11:15, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 2004-08-03 at 09:31, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
On Mon, Aug 02, 2004 at 09:03:33PM +, Jim Marhaus wrote:
Debian Legal summary of the X-Oz License
Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And the MIT license says:
MIT ... that the name of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology
MIT (M.I.T.) not be used in advertising or publicity pertaining to
MIT distribution of the software without specific, written prior
MIT permission.
As
Hm. I'm going to go read some copyright law and collect variants of
the BSD license and see what I think after a few weeks of that. Until
then, I'll let those with louder arguments figure out the X11/X.org
issue.
-Brian
--
Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, Aug 03, 2004 at 05:15:16PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 2004-08-03 at 09:31, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
On Mon, Aug 02, 2004 at 09:03:33PM +, Jim Marhaus wrote:
Debian Legal summary of the X-Oz License
On Tue, 2004-08-03 at 15:02, Simon Law wrote:
On Tue, Aug 03, 2004 at 05:15:16PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 2004-08-03 at 09:31, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
On Mon, Aug 02, 2004 at 09:03:33PM +, Jim Marhaus wrote:
Debian Legal
On Tue, 2004-08-03 at 15:02, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Hm. I'm going to go read some copyright law and collect variants of
the BSD license and see what I think after a few weeks of that. Until
then, I'll let those with louder arguments figure out the X11/X.org
issue.
The language in
Simon Law [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Aug 03, 2004 at 05:15:16PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
The summary claims that clause 4 makes the license non-free. Since
clause 4 is identical to what's contained in the X11 license, it makes
it difficult to take the summary terribly seriously.
[I am not on -legal; though I will read the archives, please CC.]
Hi guys,
We're trying to release X11R6.7.1 over at X.Org these days, but we've
hit a little roadbump.
As I'm sure you all know, XFree86 post-4.4RC2 bears a non-DFSG-free
licence, which makes it impossible for Debian to include.
Daniel, you'll probably be happier if you set a Mail-Followup-To
header to ensure you're CC'd.
Daniel Stone [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Now, with a release only 23 days away (isn't this better already?),
we've hit a speedbump. It's been alleged in Debian circles that the
XFree86 autoconfig code
Daniel Stone writes:
[3]:
/*
* 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),
*
On Mon, Aug 02, 2004 at 05:50:08PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Daniel Stone [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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
On Mon, Aug 02, 2004 at 12:45:02PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Daniel, you'll probably be happier if you set a Mail-Followup-To
header to ensure you're CC'd.
Daniel Stone [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Now, with a release only 23 days away (isn't this better already?),
we've hit a
Brian Thomas Sniffen writes:
Well, there's only one potential problem:
* 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
On Mon, Aug 02, 2004 at 12:54:15PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
Daniel Stone writes:
[3]:
/*
* 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
On Mon, Aug 02, 2004 at 07:11:22PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
I believe even the X-Oz licence did experience the addition of this
problematic clause at some time, so this code could be a pre-change fork or
something ? Daniel, what is in the COPYRIGHT or such file ? Could you paste
that here ?
Daniel Stone [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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
Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(snip XFree license)
Surely that can't be Free.
Congratulations. You've just declared the vast majority of XFree
non-free.
(That's almost the exact wording used in the XFree license)
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, Aug 02, 2004 at 06:07:02PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Surely that can't be Free.
Congratulations. You've just declared the vast majority of XFree
non-free.
(That's almost the exact wording used in the XFree license)
(and the
On Mon, 2004-08-02 at 13:59, Daniel Stone wrote:
On Mon, Aug 02, 2004 at 06:07:02PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Surely that can't be Free.
Congratulations. You've just declared the vast majority of XFree
non-free.
(That's almost the
On Tue, Aug 03, 2004 at 02:01:03AM +1000, Daniel Stone wrote:
Hi guys,
We're trying to release X11R6.7.1 over at X.Org these days, but we've
hit a little roadbump.
As I'm sure you all know, XFree86 post-4.4RC2 bears a non-DFSG-free
licence, which makes it impossible for Debian to include.
On Tue, Aug 03, 2004 at 02:01:03AM +1000, Daniel Stone wrote:
As we're coming up to a release and thus need to close this issue
quickly, could -legal please comment on this issue for completeness? I
would really like comments from the peanut gallery, the cheap seats, the
people who aren't
Daniel Stone wrote:
As we're coming up to a release and thus need to close this issue
quickly, could -legal please comment on this issue for completeness?
I think Simon Law summarized the X-Oz license back in February of 2004. See the
post here:
Debian Legal summary of the X-Oz License
On Mon, Aug 02, 2004 at 08:09:27PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
So, what happened is that we have autoconfig code available to us under
the XFree86 1.0 (3-clause BSD) licence, which is DFSG-free; this is the
same code that's currently in the X.Org tree, which appeared to form
the core of
So, what happened is that we have autoconfig code available to us under
the XFree86 1.0 (3-clause BSD) licence, which is DFSG-free; this is the
same code that's currently in the X.Org tree, which appeared to form
the core of Nathaniel's concerns.
That's Nathan*a*el. :-)
Looks good. I was,
73 matches
Mail list logo
