On Wed, 2008-12-03 at 06:28 +1100, Daniel Stone wrote: > 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.
Yeah, MIT does seem to be a good plan, at least for the non-spec documentation. Alan and Mikhail do mention CC-BY, which might be okay for spec docs? Would have to check. > > 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. I think it is, since you don't have that right _anyway_. The OSI variant text doesn't seem to have that clause, so, bonus. > > 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'? Probably best, yeah. Given the change waiver further on, that would still cover relicensing for FreeB-like cases as long as the contributed patch didn't include a Copyright line. - ajax
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ xorg mailing list xorg@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg
