This is interesting in a weird sort of way. If we're going to let copyrighted licenses stand in our way, I guess cut-n-pasting parts of the GPL for use in discussion is out too. So far the consensus has been that copyrighting a license is a no-op, since you can't copyright a contract. As for the rest, the ZPL is a trivial rewrite of the 4 clause BSDL (which may have some repercussions if Zope were ever to press the issue of infringement on the license itself above and beyond the absurdity of a contract being copyrighted), and the extra clause is debatable WRT DFSG 4, which I note is already being done. Basically, this whole part of the argument is a large no-op, and really shouldn't have been brought up in the first place unless you think it's time to consider the copyright on licenses as a valid thing in determining the DFSG-freeness or worth of inclusion in Debian of the program covered, in which case I say "cry havoc and loose the dogs of war".
On Tue, 4 Sep 2001, Branden Robinson wrote: >First, the license text itself: > >"Copyright (c) Zope Corporation. All rights reserved." > >If that refers to the text of the license itself, I may be violating the >license on the license text itself by quoting it for critical purposed. >Of course, in a society where Fair Use is recognized, that's not the >case, but I'm not sure the United States is such a society these days. >However, that's beyond the scope of this mail. -- EMACS == Eight Megabytes And Constantly Swapping Who is John Galt? [EMAIL PROTECTED], that's who!
