MIT copyrights in X.org source base...

[Leon Shiman]

on Tue, 10 Oct 2006 18:29:43 -0700 Alan Coopersmith wrote:
>
>Jim Gettys wrote:
>> I'm also troubled by the "both that copyright notice and this permission
>> notice appear in supporting documentation" clause, though changing this
>> may be more controversial.  I call this the "tree killer" clause.  At
>> the time we drafted the MIT license, no one anticipated aggregate Linux
>> distributions with thousands or tens of thousands of contributors.
>> Technically, if you followed this to the letter, and distribute a
>> printed document, you end up with much paper pulp covered with copyright
>> statements; it doesn't matter in electronic form nearly so much: storage
>> is cheap. I'm wondering if we should make the clause "both that
>> copyright notice and this permission notice appear in supporting
>> electronic documentation" to help save the planet.
>
>Since the original license says "in supporting documentation" and not
>"in *all* supporting documentation", is this really a problem?   As long
>as it's in some form of supporting documentation, isn't that enough?
>(Probably a question for the lawyers instead of us - maybe X.Org's contacts
>  with the SFLC can ask them.)
>

I agree.

The X.Org Foundation is legally represented by the SFLC (TheSoftware Freedom 
Law Center). I have forwarded the emails on this thread to the SFLC for 
review and comment. The SFLC reviews legal issues for the Foundation through 
the Board.

I will report to this list their view of the current proposals and 
discussion.

Leon



>-- 
>	-Alan Coopersmith-           alan.coopersmith at sun.com
>	 Sun Microsystems, Inc. - X Window System Engineering
>_______________________________________________
>xorg mailing list
>xorg at lists.freedesktop.org
>http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg