Subject: Re: X.Net, Inc. License
From: Russell Nelson <nelson@crynwr.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2001 11:49:32 -0400 (EDT)

Matthew C. Weigel writes:
 > What would be an example?  The popular "oops we didn't mean to include
 > old revisions that make disparaging remarks" kind of markup?  I'd think
 > that it's what prints out that counts.

Right, that's my point.  CR and LF are a form of markup which, when
properly rendered, are invisible.

 > Is asking submissions to be in plaintext unacceptable?

Not unacceptable, but since we're going to publish the license in HTML 
format, we want the license submitted in that format.

 > > Nope.  They want to specify jurisdiction, because they've had a
 > > problem in the past with jurisdictions which aren't friendly to open
 > > source.  They didn't specify which one it was.
 > 
 > My opinion is that "MIT License with specified jurisdiction" should be
 > approved, as this seems like a valid concern.

It's in process.

-- 
-russ nelson <sig@russnelson.com>  http://russnelson.com
Crynwr sells support for free software  | PGPok | 
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | All extremists should
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213  | +1 315 268 9201 FAX   | be shot.