On Mon, Aug 02, 2004 at 12:54:15PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote: > Daniel Stone writes: > > > [3]: > > /* > > * Copyright 2003 by David H. Dawes. > > * Copyright 2003 by X-Oz Technologies. > > * All rights reserved. > > * > > * Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a > > * copy of this software and associated documentation files (the > > "Software"), > > * to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation > > * the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, > > * and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the > > * Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions: > > * > > * The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included > > in > > * all copies or substantial portions of the Software. > > * > > * THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS > > OR > > * IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, > > * FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL > > * THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER(S) OR AUTHOR(S) BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR > > * OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, > > * ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR > > * OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE. > > * > > * Except as contained in this notice, the name of the copyright holder(s) > > * and author(s) shall not be used in advertising or otherwise to promote > > * the sale, use or other dealings in this Software without prior written > > * authorization from the copyright holder(s) and author(s). > > * > > * Author: David Dawes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>. > > */ > > This has essentially the same requirements as the three-clause BSD > license, and looks free. The difference is that the license above > says "all copies or substantial portions of the Software" where > three-clause BSD talks about "Redistributions of source code" and > "Redistributions in binary form." However, the "X-Oz Technologies" > license[1] has the same problematic advertising clause as the XFree86 > License version 1.1[2]; perhaps the disagreement over Freeness is due > to confusion about which "X-Oz Technologies" license applies?
I believe even the X-Oz licence did experience the addition of this problematic clause at some time, so this code could be a pre-change fork or something ? Daniel, what is in the COPYRIGHT or such file ? Could you paste that here ? Friendly, Sven Luther
