Re: X-Oz Technologies
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 08:00:49PM -0500, selussos wrote: We are cross purposes Branden. because of the virality of attachments, I do not open them. You confuse me; you replied[1] to a previous message of mine[2] which contained an attachment of identical type (a PGP/MIME digital signature). Also note that not all attachments are viral, and you furthermore likely have little to fear if you run your mail program as a regular user on, for example, a FreeBSD or Linux system. [1] Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/debian-legal-200403/msg00043.html [2] Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/debian-legal-200403/msg00042.html -- G. Branden Robinson| Software engineering: that part of Debian GNU/Linux | computer science which is too [EMAIL PROTECTED] | difficult for the computer http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | scientist. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: X-Oz Technologies
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 07:54:38PM -0500, selussos wrote: 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. That's quite all right, we need not have a sophisticated understanding of philosophy to resolve the present understanding. * The Debian Project generally respects the copyright holder's interpretation of the copyright license the copyright holder places on a work; * It is reasonable to assume that X-Oz Technologies, Inc., would have used the Apache Software License 1.1 or the XFree86 1.0 license if either of those licenses were found to serve the desired purpose; * To our knowledge, X-Oz Technologies, Inc., is the author of the license it used in the XFree86 X server auto-configuration code committed to XFree86 CVS by David Dawes in October of last year; * It reasonable to assume that X-Oz Technologies, Inc., wrote this license with an understanding of what it meant. All we really ask is that you share some of the particulars of that understanding with us. A reply to the 8 questions I sent you in a previous mail[1] should rectify most or all of the ambiguity in the license that we are wrestling with. [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/debian-legal-200403/msg00032.html -- G. Branden Robinson|If you wish to strive for peace of Debian GNU/Linux |soul, then believe; if you wish to [EMAIL PROTECTED] |be a devotee of truth, then http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |inquire. -- Friedrich Nietzsche signature.asc Description: Digital signature
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: 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
Re: X-Oz Technologies
On Sun, 07 Mar 2004, selussos wrote: We are cross purposes Branden. because of the virality of attachments, I do not open them. You're actually looking at a piece of mail that has a pgp signature. May I suggest using an MUA that is standards compliant and can deal with pgp/mime (eg. not Outlook)? Don Armstrong -- Debian's not really about the users or the software at all. It's a large flame-generating engine that the cabal uses to heat their coffee -- Andrew Suffield (#debian-devel Fri, 14 Feb 2003 14:34 -0500) http://www.donarmstrong.com http://www.anylevel.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu
Re: X-Oz Technologies
Branden Robinson wrote: I was unaware that the X-Oz Technolgies license already existed (under a different name, maybe?). Can you please direct me to the software projects that used it before X-Oz did? I don't mean the individual parts of the license; I know examples where those have been used. I mean the entire license as used by X-Oz (with other copyright holders' names substituted, of course). I don't recall that exact license ever having come up on this list before, and I've been subscribed for a few years -- but my memory is sadly imperfect. References to where the Free Software Foundation, Open Source Initiative, and other organizations certified it as satisfying their standards would be helpful as well. I am assuming that the X-Oz Technologies license is not *intended* to be precisely identical in meaning to the XFree86 1.0 license or Apache 1.1 license, else I expect X-Oz would have simply used one or the other of those licenses. I had thought that X-Oz independently developed its license because neither the XFree86 1.0 nor Apache 1.1 licenses achieved the desired result. 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. and I think that makes sense since one cannot interpret the license everytime for every reader. I don't think that will be necessary; with luck, X-Oz's answers to the questions Debian has raised can be dissemenated widely, as this discussion is taking place in a public forum. X-Oz certainly has my permission to quote my correspondence with you on this subject if would be helpful towards drafting a FAQ about your license, if you'd like to do that. You know, this (clarification of the terms of the license) may not be binding, but is a start. []s, Massa
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
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: X-Oz Technologies
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. We have actually seen very divergent interpretations of the same language before. For example, most people familar with the traditional BSD license used by the Regents of the University of California regard the language permission to copy, modify, and distribute this software is hereby granted as meaning that you can copy, modify, and distribute the software so licensed. But the University of Washington, which applied that language to the PINE mail user agent software, disagrees: In particular, the earliest Pine licenses included the words: Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software... is hereby granted, but some people tried to pervert the meaning of that sentence to define this software to include derivative works of this software. The intent has always been that you can re-distribute the UW distribution, but if you modify it, you have created a derivative work and must ask permission to redistribute it. There has never been implicit or explicit permission given to redistribute modified or derivative versions without permission.[1] Consequently, we have learned that the copyright holder's interpretation of his, her, or its license does matter. If you could answer the eight questions I posed in an earlier mail I think would shed a lot of light on things. Thanks again for your patience and assistance! [1] http://www.washington.edu/pine/faq/legal.html -- G. Branden Robinson| Mob rule isn't any prettier just Debian GNU/Linux | because you call your mob a [EMAIL PROTECTED] | government. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
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
Re: X-Oz Technologies
On 2004-03-03 02:16:45 + selussos [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Does debian-legal ask these questions to every copyright holder who _reuses_ an existing and acceptable license? The X-Oz is not directly any existing accepted licence, is it? -legal members do ask these sort of questions about most new licences, when it seems unclear. I have read elsewhere on this list [...] I strongly suggest that you give references when writing that sort of thing, else insanity may result. Also, dealing with -legal directly rather than through a summariser or maintainer means that you are talking to a range of people with different views who refine them over time to reach consensus (usually!), so someone else's bug wouldn't bind Branden. On the point under discussion, I think both licence text and holder's stated intent have some value. :-) -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know. Please http://remember.to/edit_messages on lists to be sure I read http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ gopher://g.towers.org.uk/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/
