Re: X-Oz Technologies
Sue, There is a principle in hermeneutics that says: there are no useless words. This means, basically: if you want to say the same thing, use the same words. If you don't use the same words, you don't want to say the same thing. Basically, if X-Oz wants the same disposition as Apache Foundation (license v.1.1) /or/ XFree (license v.1.0), it should use the same license; or else, the only real -- and /legal/ -- conclusion is that the disposition is not the same. Herr Heidegger's principle of hermeneutics is not widely accepted except outside of modern existentialism and as brilliantly postulated by the late Monsieur Satre. But, if I am to follow that very principle that you espouse, I would then also ask you to read the license in the spirit of the American philosopher-academian, Prof. Fish, in which case I can only say that your understanding must be different from mine and that all words are useless. Thus I can only ask that we can only argue from the basis of 'common understanding' and 'common application'. Anything else would be too relativistic to gain much headway and I do not have that type of time (unfortunately ;-( to partake in such a heady discussion. Best Regards, Sue
Re: Debian Legal summary of the X-Oz License
Sail away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover. - Mark Twain. - Original Message - From: Ben Reser [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; debian-legal@lists.debian.org Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2004 10:41 PM Subject: Re: Debian Legal summary of the X-Oz License On Tue, Mar 02, 2004 at 04:37:32PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: 3. The end-user documentation included with the redistribution, if any, must include the following acknowledgment: This product includes software developed by X-Oz Technologies (http://www.x-oz.com/). Alternately, this acknowledgment may appear in the software itself, if and wherever such third-party acknowledgments normally appear. We find this statement to be a bit confusing. Here are some questions that may make it less so for us. 1) Can this clause be satisfied simply by including the license text in end-user documentation, since the license text includes verbatim the required acknowledgement? 2) Is there an objective set of characteristics that distinguish end-user documentation from any other kind of documentation? 3) If the answer to 2) is no, or you if you are unable to think of any, would you strike the term end-user from the license text, and apply the amended license to all of the code copyrighted by X-Oz Technologies, Inc. that is currently in public circulation? 4) Is it the position of X-Oz Technologies, Inc., that this clause is binding upon the licensee even if end-user documentation included with the redistribution neither contains, nor is derived from, work copyrighted by X-Oz Technologies, Inc., and licensed under these terms? [ For example, if I am distributing Vim, the text editor, as well as its user manual, on a CD-ROM to someone, and include the source code to the XFree86 X server from the XFree86 CVS trunk as of November 2003 on that same CD-ROM as a convenience, am I required to modify the Vim documentation to include the statement This product includes software developed by X-Oz Technologies (http://www.x-oz.com/).? ] 5) If the answer to 4) is yes, am I relieved of the obligation of this clause of the license if the only end-user documentation I am distributing is not copyrighted by me, and I have no license from the copyright holder to modify that documentation? Susan, The above questions that Branden asks if answered would probably relieve the concern with this clause. Can you please reply specifically to them? 4. Except as contained in this notice, the name of X-Oz Technologies shall not be used in advertising or otherwise to promote the sale, use or other dealings in this Software without prior written authorization from X-Oz Technologies. We have some concerns about this clause as well. All of you have stated, endlessly, that you are not lawyers, and that is obviously the case since many of your questions deal with 'fair use' under the U.S. Copyright law. I would ask that you familiarize with that definition and you will find that answers most, if not all, of your questions. Best Regards, Sue
Re: Debian Legal summary of the X-Oz License
Sail away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover. - Mark Twain. - Original Message - From: MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: selussos [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: debian-legal@lists.debian.org Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2004 10:42 PM Subject: Re: Debian Legal summary of the X-Oz License On 2004-03-02 23:48:35 + selussos [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Why does this clause attempt to use a copyright licence forbid basic rights granted in most trademark law? [...] This clause is also in the X.org license and is found throughout X. We chose to be specific because we are the _only_ copyright holder, which is not the case, as you will notice, for X.org. Thanks for letting me clear that one up. I'm sorry to write that I don't think you answered my question above at all, but stated a case where the questionable term is in a different copyright licence. However, I think the use is significantly different. The copyright permissions granted by the X.org licence found at http://www.x.org/Downloads_terms.html do not seem to be conditional on that term. The permissions of the X-Oz licence are. Could you please look at the X.org and X-Oz licences again and notice this difference? If you want to mimic the X.org licence, then will you make that clause a notice in the footer instead, please? Copyright licence conditions are the wrong way to police trademarks. That possibly could be your own _personal_ prejudice which is understandable but I think that U.S. Copyright is fairly well deployed throughout this world and is internationally recognized. Best Regards, Sue
Re: X-Oz Technologies
We are cross purposes Branden. because of the virality of attachments, I do not open them. Best Regards, Sue The danger from computers is not that they will eventually get as smart as men, but we will agree to meet them halfway. - Bernard Avishai - Original Message - From: Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: selussos [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: debian-legal@lists.debian.org Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2004 9:48 PM Subject: Re: X-Oz Technologies
Re: X-Oz Technologies
Sue, There is a principle in hermeneutics that says: there are no useless words. This means, basically: if you want to say the same thing, use the same words. If you don't use the same words, you don't want to say the same thing. Basically, if X-Oz wants the same disposition as Apache Foundation (license v.1.1) /or/ XFree (license v.1.0), it should use the same license; or else, the only real -- and /legal/ -- conclusion is that the disposition is not the same. Herr Heidegger's principle of hermeneutics is not widely accepted except outside of modern existentialism and as brilliantly postulated by the late Monsieur Satre. But, if I am to follow that very principle that you espouse, I would then also ask you to read the license in the spirit of the American philosopher-academian, Prof. Fish, in which case I can only say that your understanding must be different from mine and that all words are useless. Thus I can only ask that we can only argue from the basis of 'common understanding' and 'common application'. Anything else would be too relativistic to gain much headway and I do not have that type of time (unfortunately ;-( to partake in such a heady discussion. Best Regards, Sue
to Andrew Suffield
Someone sent me a comment from you on our license. I am not subscribed to this list as I have already said, and so I can only paraphrase from the list and ask, was this comment, ontological, metaphysical, or are you so puerile as to be saying this literally? Best Regards Sue
Re: Debian Legal summary of the X-Oz License
- Original Message - From: MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: selussos [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: debian-legal@lists.debian.org Sent: Sunday, March 07, 2004 9:13 PM Subject: Re: Debian Legal summary of the X-Oz License On 2004-03-08 00:57:38 + selussos [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: All of you have stated, endlessly, that you are not lawyers, and that is obviously the case since many of your questions deal with 'fair use' under the U.S. Copyright law. I would ask that you familiarize with that definition and you will find that answers most, if not all, of your questions. I am not in the United States. Copyright law here has no fair use term in it, only a restricted fair dealing provision. We cannot rely on the US copyright law's fair use contradicting your licence terms in a way that makes it a free software licence. I ask that you familiarise yourself with this basic problem of copyright and free software. Software that is free only for US residents isn't free software (or open source AIUI). I am unaware of what AIUI means so I cannot comment on this at all. Sue
Re: Debian Legal summary of the X-Oz License
- Original Message - From: MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: selussos [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: debian-legal@lists.debian.org Sent: Sunday, March 07, 2004 8:56 PM Subject: Re: Debian Legal summary of the X-Oz License On 2004-03-08 00:59:06 + selussos [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: However, I think the use is significantly different. The copyright permissions granted by the X.org licence found at http://www.x.org/Downloads_terms.html do not seem to be conditional on that term. The permissions of the X-Oz licence are. Could you please look at the X.org and X-Oz licences again and notice this difference? If you want to mimic the X.org licence, then will you make that clause a notice in the footer instead, please? Copyright licence conditions are the wrong way to police trademarks. That possibly could be your own _personal_ prejudice which is understandable but I think that U.S. Copyright is fairly well deployed throughout this world and is internationally recognized. It's not prejudice, but understanding. It took some time to understand that copyright licences can easily become non-free if you try to use them to enforce trademarks. Most of my learning curve is in the -legal list archive. If you want to learn about it, I suggest the Jeff Licquia thread (good summary from Branden in July 2002 http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200207/msg00256.html), the TEI Guidelines thread (recent, but a bit wordy and vague) and the various logo threads. Next, United States copyright law has the United States as its scope and I'm not sure that anywhere else recognises exactly the same words. If you want to look at the international agreements, the main one is the Berne Convention. You can find the text at http://www.law.cornell.edu/treaties/berne/overview.html amongst others. Your copyright adviser should be able to tell you more about this. Nothing that I know makes a notice mean the same as a condition of a permission grant. Can you see why a condition of the permission grant (such as your condition clause 4) is different to a notice in the licence (such as the X.org phrase that you mentioned)? If you wish to achieve the same effect as the X.org licence, will you change condition clause 4 into a notice at the end, like the X.org licence, please? I will be away for several days because of business requirements and such will not be able to familiarize myself with your concerns until I return. I can only state that if the 4th clause is indeed your concern there is a lot more software than ours that you should be worried about, and so I must ask, why aren't you? And why is debian distributing that, and by so doing so obviously acknowledging their validity but now ours? I would hate to think that something as provincial as prejudice against one our officers is the cause. At this point, and because of the great amount of time and effort this is taking, I must ask all of you to address this concern of mine. Sue
subscribe
subscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED] You can tell whether a man is clever by his answers. You can tell whether a man is wise by his questions. — Naguib Mahfouz
X-Oz Technologies
Hi, Sorry for the noise but I was unsure if I needed to subscribe or not. Someone kindly let me know that my post got through so I think it's better I just reply as needed. If you think that this is burdensome I will subscribe if that is preferred. I am responding to this list, since a concerned free software enthusiast has told me that several concerns about our license have been raised here. I really did not know of this as I, nor any other X-Ozzie, had been contacted previous to that first contact about any of these concerns. If someone would like us to comment on the X-Oz license issues, I will gladly do so. Please let me know what the pertinent issues are, as you see it, and hopefully I will be able to allay your concerns. Thank you again for your concern and interest. Best Regards Sue The only way to discover the limits of the possible is to go beyond them into the impossible. — Arthur C. Clark
Re: X-Oz Technologies
On Tue, Mar 02, 2004 at 11:04:35AM -0500, selussos wrote: I am responding to this list, since a concerned free software enthusiast has told me that several concerns about our license have been raised here. I really did not know of this as I, nor any other X-Ozzie, had been contacted previous to that first contact about any of these concerns. If someone would like us to comment on the X-Oz license issues, I will gladly do so. Please let me know what the pertinent issues are, as you see it, and hopefully I will be able to allay your concerns. If you could comment on the issues raised in this email it would be most helpful: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/debian-legal-200402/msg00162.html Thanks. -- Ben Reser [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://ben.reser.org Conscience is the inner voice which warns us somebody may be looking. - H.L. Mencken Thanks for the note Ben and cc'ing me as I am not on the debian-legal list. I will discuss the license in the format recommended by the OSI and I hope that that clarifies the issues raised and allays all concerns: First, the license in question, which we have termed the X-Oz license can be found in full at: http://www.x-oz.com/licenses.html. The first part of the license (the permission notice) is taken from the XFree86 1.0 license. The XFree86 1.0 license is the same as the X.Org license. Since Debian ships versions of XFree86 under that license, we assume it is considered DSFG-free. 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 first three condition clauses are taken from the Apache 1.1 license, which we again assume to be DSFG-free since Debian ships versions of Apache that are subject to that license: 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions, and the following disclaimer 2.Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution 3. The end-user documentation included with the redistribution, if any, must include the following acknowledgment: This product includes software developed by X-Oz Technologies (http://www.x-oz.com/). Alternately, this acknowledgment may appear in the software itself, if and wherever such third-party acknowledgments normally appear. The fourth condition is from the XFree86 1.0 license: 4. Except as contained in this notice, the name of X-Oz Technologies shall not be used in advertising or otherwise to promote the sale, use or other dealings in this Software without prior written authorization from X-Oz Technologies. And finally our disclaimer notice is also from the Apache 1.1 license. THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED ``AS IS'' AND ANY EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL X-OZ TECHNOLOGIES OR ITS CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE Best Regards and thanks for your concern. Sue P.S. The Apache 1.1 is also on the OSI as OSI-compliant, http://www.opensource.org/licenses/apachepl.php Don't judge each day by the harvest you reap, but by the seeds you plant. - Robert Louis Stevenson
Re: Debian Legal summary of the X-Oz License
- Original Message - From: MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: selussos [EMAIL PROTECTED]; debian-legal@lists.debian.org Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2004 5:38 PM Subject: Re: Debian Legal summary of the X-Oz License 4. Except as contained in this notice, the name of X-Oz Technologies shall not be used in advertising or otherwise to promote the sale, use or other dealings in this Software without prior written authorization from X-Oz Technologies. Why does this clause attempt to use a copyright licence forbid basic rights granted in most trademark law? Why does it speak of this Software instead of the more usual products derived from this Software? Thanks, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know. This clause is also in the X.org license and is found throughout X. We chose to be specific because we are the _only_ copyright holder, which is not the case, as you will notice, for X.org. Thanks for letting me clear that one up. Best Regards Sue You can tell whether a man is clever by his answers. You can tell whether a man is wise by his questions. - Naguib Mahfouz
Re: X-Oz Technologies
At 08:39 PM 3/2/2004 -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: On Tue, Mar 02, 2004 at 05:15:45PM -0500, selussos wrote: Thanks for the note Ben and cc'ing me as I am not on the debian-legal list. I will discuss the license in the format recommended by the OSI and I hope that that clarifies the issues raised and allays all concerns: First, the license in question, which we have termed the X-Oz license can be found in full at: http://www.x-oz.com/licenses.html. The first part of the license (the permission notice) is taken from the XFree86 1.0 license. The XFree86 1.0 license is the same as the X.Org license. Since Debian ships versions of XFree86 under that license, we assume it is considered DSFG-free. [...] The first three condition clauses are taken from the Apache 1.1 license, which we again assume to be DSFG-free since Debian ships versions of Apache that are subject to that license: [...] The fourth condition is from the XFree86 1.0 license: [...] And finally our disclaimer notice is also from the Apache 1.1 license. THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED ``AS IS'' AND ANY EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL X-OZ TECHNOLOGIES OR ITS CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE [...] Best Regards and thanks for your concern. Thanks for identifying the origin of the component parts of your license; that is indeed useful. However, X-Oz Technolgies, Inc., is not the Apache Software Foundation, nor the XFree86 Project, Inc., and X-Oz is at liberty to interpret the language in your copyright license as it sees fit. X-Oz is not legally bound by the interpretations -- even of the same precise language -- of the Apache Software Foundation and XFree86 Project, Inc. Branden, Does debian-legal ask these questions to every copyright holder who _reuses_ an existing and acceptable license? I have read elsewhere on this list that _intent_ does not matter only the text does and I think that makes sense since one cannot interpret the license everytime for every reader. Regards Sue
