At 08:39 PM 3/2/2004 -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: On Tue, Mar 02, 2004 at 05:15:45PM -0500, selussos wrote: > Thanks for the note Ben and cc'ing me as I am not on the debian-legal > list. I will discuss the license in the format recommended by the > OSI and I hope that that clarifies the issues raised and allays all > concerns: > > First, the license in question, which we have termed the X-Oz license > can be found in full at: http://www.x-oz.com/licenses.html. > > The first part of the license (the permission notice) is taken from > the XFree86 1.0 license. The XFree86 1.0 license is the same as the > X.Org license. Since Debian ships versions of XFree86 under that > license, we assume it is considered DSFG-free. [...] > The first three condition clauses are taken from the Apache 1.1 > license, which we again assume to be DSFG-free since Debian ships > versions of Apache that are subject to that license: [...] > The fourth condition is from the XFree86 1.0 license: [...] > And finally our disclaimer notice is also from the Apache 1.1 license. > > THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED ``AS IS'' AND ANY EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED > WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF > MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. > IN NO EVENT SHALL X-OZ TECHNOLOGIES OR ITS CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR > ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL > DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE > GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS > INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER > IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR > OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN > IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE [...] > Best Regards and thanks for your concern.
Thanks for identifying the origin of the component parts of your license; that is indeed useful. However, X-Oz Technolgies, Inc., is not the Apache Software Foundation, nor the XFree86 Project, Inc., and X-Oz is at liberty to interpret the language in your copyright license as it sees fit. X-Oz is not legally bound by the interpretations -- even of the same precise language -- of the Apache Software Foundation and XFree86 Project, Inc. Branden, Does debian-legal ask these questions to every copyright holder who _reuses_ an existing and acceptable license? I have read elsewhere on this list that _intent_ does not matter only the text does and I think that makes sense since one cannot interpret the license everytime for every reader. Regards Sue
