On Wed, Aug 04, 2004 at 02:33:16PM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote: > On Wed, 2004-08-04 at 13:35, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 03, 2004 at 11:15:09AM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote: > > > Brian, stop calling the MIT and 3 clause BSD licenses non-free. If > > > anyone needed evidence that debian-legal has become overreaching and > > > useless, it's here. > > > > Please note that is not a consensus here. > > Actually, it was consensus here when the X-Oz license was examined back > in February. Branden Robinson[0] declared the clause in question > non-free, and the final summary posted by Simon Law[1] also referred to > the clause as problematic.
Just a question, which version of the X-Oz licence does this summary affect ? The original one, or the later reworked by Dawes one ? The one under discussion here seems to be the original one, which is very similar to the original MIT/X licence. Friendly, Sven Luther