On Wed, Aug 04, 2004 at 03:15:26PM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
> The summary I linked to was about reworked X-Oz license, which is
> clearly GPL-incompatible and probably non-free. However, clause 4
> criticized in the summary is identical to a clause in the license that
> started this thread, and all the other X licenses, and very similar to
> the 3-clause BSD license.
I feel that I should admit that I was wrong about clause 4, and
obviously was very sleep deprived at all times that I wrote about it.
*sigh*
We should probably rewrite the summary, so that people know that
only clause 3 is problematic.
Simon
