On Tue, Aug 03, 2004 at 05:15:16PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> 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.
Read more carefully.
Clause 4 of the X-Oz license is a condition on "rights to use,
copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies
of the Software".
This is not the same wording as the X11 license at all.
Simon
