>
> Given that 3.9 was released fall '06 and the agreements went out  
> later than that it's probably safe to assume that contributions to  
> 3.8 and 3.9 are covered by it.

Who should we ask to be sure?
I would like the foundation to answer that point.


>>>>
>> I think that we should pay attention to have such information not  
>> in the source code itself.
>
> I think you are overreacting.

May be but I do not like the idea that the code license is stated in a  
funny way (posted on bug tracking system
that may be replaced by another one). I just want to understand how we  
can fix that once the image is fully MIT.
We should keep our energy for other more exciting topics.

Stef