MIT copyrights in X.org source base...

[Eric Anholt]

On Thu, 2006-10-26 at 18:21 -0700, Alan Coopersmith wrote: 
> I ran this draft by our lawyers, who had some comments.   Funnily enough,
> they suggested that to avoid further license proliferation, we should just
> use the MIT license instead of developing yet another variant - specifically
> they pointed to the version at:
> 	http://opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php
> 
> which they noted solves the "tree-killing" problem as well, without inventing
> new language, by simply not having a clause at all that requires credit in
> the documentation.   (They didn't really like adding "electronic" to the
> existing clause.)

Seconded.  I'm happy with the linked version for all my personal
copyrights in the tree.  Looks like the version I've been slapping on
for Intel just has "(including the next paragraph)" added after "this
permission notice.  I'm checking with our lawyer for his stamp of
approval.

-- 
Eric Anholt                             anholt at FreeBSD.org
eric at anholt.net                         eric.anholt at intel.com
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg/attachments/20061027/0d76bf52/attachment.pgp>