Subject: Re: the X-Oz license
From: Ernest Prabhakar <>
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2004 23:39:10 -0500

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 
> 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