MIT copyrights in X.org source base...

[Jim Gettys]

On Tue, 2006-10-10 at 18:29 -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.)
> 

Maybe not; depends on how the clause is construed.  It is an ambiguity
in the language.
                             - Jim

-- 
Jim Gettys
One Laptop Per Child