On Wed, Mar 03, 2004 at 04:04:22AM +0000, MJ Ray wrote: > Available time for this is finite. I prefer to code. That's why my > replies are short. I'd not encountered this licence myself before, so > hadn't questioned it. People who are concerned with these things need > to take part. I think that's what you do.
*nod* > >I have one sitting in my email box that I think meets that. But I > >think > >it's better if they give it to you directly. [...] > > "Redo my work, Branden"? No, I think them making statements directly here is more effective than me relaying them. Like I said in another email. If they don't answer by tomorrow I'll forward the message. Further, I didn't ask as specific of questions as Branden did. Having his questions answered is more useful in the long run than just the email I have. At least when it comes to Clause 3. I think my alternative questions that I posted on the list (which I didn't not ask in private email) are more likely to resolve the problem with Clause 4. Or at least resolve it in a way that avoids unclear language and stops the continued use of the questionable clause. > >But once license > >clauses are in common use, people are going to propogate them to other > >licenses. > > Is there a licence in Debian that is conditional on X-Oz's clause 4 > wording? I'm not sure I follow you as in what you mean by conditional. But the old XFree86 license (XFree86 4.3 and older, identified as the XFree86 1.0 license) has the exact same language. It's the very last sentence in the license, has no numbering and is after the disclaimer. -- Ben Reser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://ben.reser.org "Conscience is the inner voice which warns us somebody may be looking." - H.L. Mencken
