All,

I thought this was already figured out.  Viewpoints is collecting a
distribution agreement from all authors of squeak code.  Once that is done
Squeak will be re-licensed under MIT.  

Do these distribution agreements allow VPRI to distribute Squeak without a
copy of the license that includes the names of all authors, or does MIT
require that all authors be listed?

If this has not been figured out then we really need to settle this issue
now before Viewpoints finishes.  Does the agreement we signed for VPRI allow
the transfer of distribution rights to SqF?  Or does SqF need to take the
MIT version and then get new distributions agreements for all new
contributions in order to be able to distribute the next version of Squeak
under MIT?  Is VPRI planning to continue supporting our record keeping needs
with regards to licensing in which case the official distribution of Squeak
will come from them instead of SqF?

Can we make this the number one priority of the new SqueakFoundation board?
We should be getting and following real legal advice not guessing and if
something needs to be put in place to accept new contributions then that
should be done now.  This is defiantly one of those places where a simple
defined policy can save a huge amount of work later.

Ron Teitelbaum
President / Principal Software Engineer
US Medical Record Specialists  


> From: tim Rowledge
> 
> 
> On 19-Mar-07, at 10:52 AM, karl wrote:
> 
> 
> >
> > So it should be enough to have one license in the image ?
> 
> I'd say a reference to the license in the image, a copy of it in the
> sources file (hell it can be a class comment, that would  put it in
> both places), and a page on squeak.org as well.
> 
> Contributions must be offered within the scope of the license and I
> imagine we'd have to ask any new contributors to sign & mail the same
> agreement most of us already have sent in.
> 
> What about VM & plugin code? Does that have to be the same licence? I
> think it ought to be but maybe there is something more appropriate.
> 
> tim
> --
> tim Rowledge; tim at rowledge.org; http://www.rowledge.org/tim
> A computer scientist is someone who fixes things that aren't broken.
> 
> 
>