Update the comment about "a modification is currently under discussion"
since there hasn't been any such discussion for some time and this is
the consensus agreed upon preferred format.

Also throw in a pointer to the OSI discussion page about the MIT license.
Signed-off-by: Alan Coopersmith <alan.coopersmith@sun.com>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Stone <daniel@fooishbar.org>
Reviewed-by: Peter Hutterer <peter.hutterer@who-t.net>

From the original Xsdl commit:
"sdl x server so that we can x-on-x the fb stuff for ease of debugging. if
anyone uses this in production, a big scary monster will eat them.
hrm, perhaps i should make it have a --i-know-what-i'm-doing
param that it doens't start without, heh"

That should be reason enough to not spend time maintaing it. Also, no more
elephants.
Signed-off-by: Peter Hutterer <peter.hutterer@who-t.net>

Signed-off-by: Alan Coopersmith <alan.coopersmith@sun.com>

Signed-off-by: Alan Coopersmith <alan.coopersmith@sun.com>

Remove notices for code no longer in tree (Xprint, Xgl, kdrive, cfb, etc.)
Add/update notices for new/changed code in tree
Signed-off-by: Alan Coopersmith <alan.coopersmith@sun.com>

This reverts commit 64387c85.

X.org should not be providing a custom SHA1 implementation.

Simon Thum authored Jul 23, 2008 and Peter Hutterer committed Jul 28, 2008

Signed-off-by: Peter Hutterer <peter.hutterer@who-t.net>

For a few of us, the license statement is identical, and the only variant is
the copyright.  For these, aggregate the copyrights, and only list the license
once.  Put this at the top, and note that this is more or less our agreed
canonical license.

Daniel Drake authored Aug 01, 2007 and Daniel Stone committed Aug 01, 2007

I went through the entire xorg-server distribution and aggregated all
the licenses I could find (except the questionable GPL files, see my
last mail).

There are many many permutations on essentially the same license terms,
but I have been pedantic and treated slight differences as separate
licenses.

Here is a description of the process I used:

tar xvjf /usr/portage/distfiles/xorg-server-1.1.1.tar.bz2

cd xorg-server-1.1.1
find -name '*.c' -o -name '*.h' | xargs gvim

egrep -Rli "permission|copyright" * | grep -v "\.[ch]" \
        | grep -v "\.in$" | xargs gvim

cd ..
tar xvjf /usr/portage/distfiles/xorg-server-1.3.0.0.tar.bz2
diff -urNp xorg-server-1.1.1 xorg-server-1.3.0.0

git clone git://anongit.freedesktop.org/git/xorg/xserver
cd xserver
git diff xorg-server-1.3.0.0..

For each file, licenses have been aggregated as follows:

If 2 files have identical license text but different copyright notices,
the copyright notices are aggregated and the license text
is included only once.

Note that by identical I mean really identical, i.e.:
 'AUTHOR(S)' is not the same as 'AUTHORS'
 'KEITH PACKARD DISCLAIMS' is not the same as 'KEITH PACKARD AND COMPAQ
DISCLAIM'

Otherwise, licenses and accompanying copyright notices have been
stacked.

When going through the changes from 1.1.1 to 1.3.0.0 then HEAD, licenses
have been added and removed (so I have reflected this since the original
version of my COPYING file). It's slightly concerning to see that even
between 1.3.0.0 and HEAD, new license permutations are being added. I'd
suggest that a primary license be chosen and this would be indicated at
the top of this COPYING file.

Daniel Drake authored Apr 30, 2007 and Daniel Stone committed Aug 01, 2007

I went through the entire xorg-server distribution and aggregated all
the licenses I could find (except the questionable GPL files, see my
last mail).

There are many many permutations on essentially the same license terms,
but I have been pedantic and treated slight differences as separate
licenses.

Here is a description of the process I used:

tar xvjf /usr/portage/distfiles/xorg-server-1.1.1.tar.bz2

cd xorg-server-1.1.1
find -name '*.c' -o -name '*.h' | xargs gvim

egrep -Rli "permission|copyright" * | grep -v "\.[ch]" \
	| grep -v "\.in$" | xargs gvim

cd ..
tar xvjf /usr/portage/distfiles/xorg-server-1.3.0.0.tar.bz2