X.Net, Inc. License

[Matthew C. Weigel]

On Sun, 5 Aug 2001, Russell Nelson wrote:

> Karsten M. Self writes:
>  > I'm assuming that markup isn't a legal part of the license -- and
>  > would strongly encourage submissions be made as plaintext, not
>  > HTML-tagged content.
> 
> If you got a Word .doc file, would you also assume that the markup
> isn't a legal part of the license?

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.

Is asking submissions to be in plaintext unacceptable?

> 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.
-- 
 Matthew Weigel
 Research Systems Programmer
 mcweigel at cs.cmu.edu ne weigel at pitt.edu