Draft: License policy for contributors
ajax at nwnk.net
Tue Dec 2 13:36:44 PST 2008
On Wed, 2008-12-03 at 06:28 +1100, Daniel Stone wrote:
> 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.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
More information about the xorg