On Mar 3, 2004, at 8:13 PM, selussos wrote:
Hi Sue,
On Mar 2, 2004, at 3:50 PM, selussos wrote:
Hi I would like to submit the X-Oz license for OSI compliancy. I've written the following up per your request on the site.
Thanks for the detailed summary. Could you perhaps comment on why you
are not just explicitly using the Apache 1.1 license with name changes?
In most cases, the benefit of reusing an existing license outweighs
the benefits of any minor improvements in clarity, in terms of
developer comprehensibility.
-- Ernie P. IANAL, TINLA, etc., etc. and so forth
Great hearing from you Ernie, but I don't agree at all.
Our object in taking the Apache 1.1 license was to X-ify it
and so make it the _standard_ for other businesses to devote
hunks of R&D to a free project like XFree86 and still derive some benefit from
the endeavor.
If there is any license we would take, it would be the XFree86 one
as currently deployed, 1.1 at http://www.xfree86.org/legal/licenses.html
as it is most certainly and unabashedly an X-based license.
Would that be preferable?
I'm not saying you -have- to use the Apache 1.1 license. I'm just trying to understand -why- you wanted to write your own license. If the X11 license meets your needs, it certainly would be great if you could use that. If not, then it would be interesting to hear the exact reasons -why- you want to a different license.
-- Ernie P.
-- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
