On Tue, Mar 02, 2004 at 04:37:32PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > > 3. The end-user documentation included with the redistribution, if > > any, must include the following acknowledgment: > > > > "This product includes software developed by X-Oz Technologies > > (http://www.x-oz.com/)." > > > > Alternately, this acknowledgment may appear in the software > > itself, > > if and wherever such third-party acknowledgments normally appear. > > We find this statement to be a bit confusing. Here are some questions > that may make it less so for us. > > 1) Can this clause be satisfied simply by including the license text in > end-user documentation, since the license text includes verbatim the > required acknowledgement? > > 2) Is there an objective set of characteristics that distinguish > "end-user" documentation from any other kind of documentation? > > 3) If the answer to 2) is "no", or you if you are unable to think of > any, would you strike the term "end-user" from the license text, and > apply the amended license to all of the code copyrighted by X-Oz > Technologies, Inc. that is currently in public circulation? > > 4) Is it the position of X-Oz Technologies, Inc., that this clause is > binding upon the licensee even if end-user documentation included with > the redistribution neither contains, nor is derived from, work > copyrighted by X-Oz Technologies, Inc., and licensed under these terms? > > [ For example, if I am distributing Vim, the text editor, as well as its > user manual, on a CD-ROM to someone, and include the source code to the > XFree86 X server from the XFree86 CVS trunk as of November 2003 on that > same CD-ROM as a convenience, am I required to modify the Vim > documentation to include the statement "This product includes software > developed by X-Oz Technologies (http://www.x-oz.com/)."? ] > > 5) If the answer to 4) is "yes", am I relieved of the obligation of this > clause of the license if the only end-user documentation I am > distributing is not copyrighted by me, and I have no license from the > copyright holder to modify that documentation?
Susan, The above questions that Branden asks if answered would probably relieve the concern with this clause. Can you please reply specifically to them? > > 4. Except as contained in this notice, the name of X-Oz Technologies > > shall not be used in advertising or otherwise to promote the sale, > > use or other dealings in this Software without prior written > > authorization from X-Oz Technologies. > > We have some concerns about this clause as well. > > 6) What does "or otherwise" mean? It would seem to include all forms of > communication other than advertising (examples include magazine reviews, > blog postings, and so forth). > > 7) What does "or other dealings" mean? It would seem to include all > activities that can be promoted other than sale or use (examples include > charitable donations of copies of the software, or the "cooking" of a > CD-ROM with a copy of the software encoded on it in a microwave oven). > > 8) As far as the participants on the debian-legal mailing list are > aware, there is no jurisdiction in the world in which a right to use the > name of a copyright holder for promotional purposes automatically > attaches to any copyright license, no matter how liberal its terms. Can > you tell us why X-Oz Technology, Inc., feels this clause is necessary? I'm going to assume that X-Oz is going to find these questions difficult to answer because I think they were simply using a clause from the X.org and XFree86 1.1 license. See my other email with some questions that I think will be easier to answer and might result in a satesfactory resolution quicker. -- Ben Reser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://ben.reser.org "Conscience is the inner voice which warns us somebody may be looking." - H.L. Mencken
