On 2004-03-27 08:18:00 +0000 Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
To recap, when:
* We know the license author is aware of existing licenses; and
* The license author doesn't explain exactly how those existing
licenses
are deficient; and
* The license author doesn't explain how the new license works, in
contrast to the deficient licenses used to construct the new
license,
...then I do not think we can accept that new license as DFSG-free if
there is any DFSG-freeness defect or ambiguity on its face.
That appears to be the case with the X-Oz and XFree86 1.1 licenses.
As you know, I think changing a simple statement into one of the
condition clauses is a substantial change in these new licences,
apparently not shared by any other.
We last heard from a representative of X-Oz, selussos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
on 7 March. In the messages that day (apart from accusations about
-legal contributors motives), she indicated that the X-Oz licence
needs US copyright law and "fair use" doctrine to meet some basic DFSG
ideas. She also wrote that she "will be away for several days" but
that was 20 days ago.
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/debian-legal-200403/author.html
What are the next steps?
--
MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know.
Please http://remember.to/edit_messages on lists to be sure I read
http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ gopher://g.towers.org.uk/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/
