Draft: License policy for contributors

[Daniel Stone]

Hi,

On Tue, Dec 02, 2008 at 01:48:31PM -0500, Adam Jackson wrote:
> I don't know what our documentation licensing stance is.  MIT would keep
> things simple, but I don't know if it's appropriate for docs.

What're our options? GFDL is out as DFSG-incompatible.

> The X.Org Foundation is dedicated to improving the open source reference
> implementation of the X Window System for the benefit of all.  To this
> end, code and documentation contributions are required to be under a
> suitably permissive license.  The preferred code license is the MIT
> license; the canonical form of the MIT license is here: [ insert link to
> version with generic "THE AUTHORS" rather than explicit author names ].

xserver/COPYING has a boilerplate, but we never did get resolution on
whether or not the 'the names of blah blah may not be used' paragraph
was superfluous.

> For small changes, including patches sent through a bug tracker or
> mailing list, changes are assumed to be under the MIT license.  If you
> do not agree to this, please refrain from sending us such patches in the
> first place, and ask to have your changes reverted if necessary.

Er, 'under the license listed in the file(s), or MIT if none'?

Otherwise, looks good to me (though I've not got any to compare it
against; maybe the ASF have something that's worth checking?), so
S-o-b me.

Cheers,
Daniel
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg/attachments/20081203/27a43747/attachment.pgp>