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 +0000, 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. >> >> Am I missing something? > > Yes. Clause 3 is the GPL-incompatible non-free one. Clause 4 is standard > boilerplate, found in many licenses (it's also superfluous, being > written into copyright by default in US law).
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. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
