stephane ducasse wrote:
>> 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?

The judge proceeding over the case.

> I would like the foundation to answer that point.

It's impossible to answer any matter of law without having a judge rule 
on it. You can ask your friendly neighborhood lawyer to give you advice 
on the matter but the first thing he'll tell you is that there is no way 
"to be sure" - and that's only partly because he's making his money off 
your uncertainty ;-)

Personally, I feel save enough by the agreement not to worry about it. 
What evidence is there that any of it is *not* under MIT? You can't 
conclusively proof that legally everything is protected well enough to 
hold up in court but in absence of *any* evidence to the contrary I feel 
safe enough about it. Because, if someone stands up and says "I didn't 
want this to be under MIT" it can be ripped out in an instant.

Cheers,
   - Andreas