On Tue, Mar 02, 2004 at 06:48:35PM -0500, selussos wrote: > On Tue, Mar 02, 2004 at 6:38 PM, MJ Ray wrote: > > Why does this clause attempt to use a copyright licence forbid basic > > rights granted in most trademark law? > > > Why does it speak of "this Software" instead of the more usual > > "products derived from this Software"? > > This clause is also in the X.org license and is found throughout X. > We chose to be specific because we are the _only_ copyright holder, which > is not the case, as you will notice, for X.org.
Susan, I don't think you've answered the specific questions here. The first question is loaded and very difficult to respond to. Because it works on the presumption that you are trying to use a copyright license in a way I don't think you intend. So let me ask two questions, that are different but cover the questions above: 1) Would you consider the following language to be equivalent to your interpretation of Clause 4 of the X-Oz license: The name X-Oz Technologies may not may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission. (Note that this is the BSD endorsement clause without the language about contributors names) 2) Would you consider using this language instead of your existing language for Clause 4 if it would relieve some fears that people have about your license and resulted in better acceptance and use of your software? -- Ben Reser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://ben.reser.org "Conscience is the inner voice which warns us somebody may be looking." - H.L. Mencken
