[Vm-dev] Adding CPU specific code for fast bitblt on ARM
David T. Lewis
lewis at mail.msen.com
Thu May 30 00:00:03 UTC 2013
On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 02:50:28PM -0700, tim Rowledge wrote:
> On 29-05-2013, at 1:31 PM, "David T. Lewis" <lewis at mail.msen.com> wrote:
> > I think that we do need an explicit statement that code is MIT licensed. The
> > people who care about that stuff care about it a lot, and it messes things up
> > for e.g. Linux distro maintainers if we don't have explicit MIT licensing
> > declared.
> I was taking a look around the code currently in the tree and a lot of it has no mention of licensing, or somewhat variant looking licensy words. My RISC OS files appear to be the only ones with consistent mentions of MIT-L and that's only because I ran through them all earlier this year!
There is no need for license statements in the code files themselves, but
we do need to have a statement (in an email) from the author and/or copyright
holder to the effect that "this code is released under MIT license".
The past may have been murky, but the situation now is clear - if it is going
into the code base it needs to be MIT licensed, and we need to be able to
plausibly claim that this is so. I know that lots of folks (myself included)
don't much care about this, but out of regard for the folks who do care, we
need to be good custodians of the license integrity.
Please ask Ben ____ to send you an email to the effect that "I wrote this
stuff and I hereby release it under MIT license for use in the VM". Forward
the message to the list, and we'll call it a good day.
More information about the Vm-dev