Hi Ron--

> I thought this was already figured out.

     Yes, that's right.

> Viewpoints is collecting a distribution agreement from all authors of
> squeak code. Once that is done Squeak will be re-licensed under MIT.

     That's correct.

> 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?

     Under the agreement[1], the contributor grants Viewpoints a license
to distribute contributor's software, subject to the MIT license (which
is cited specifically by its location at the Open Source Initiative
website[2]). The text of the MIT license on that site is as follows:

***

Copyright (c) <year> <copyright holders>

Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a
copy of this software and associated documentation files (the
"Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including
without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish,
distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to
permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to
the following conditions:

The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included
in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.

THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS
OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT.
IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY
CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT,
TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE
SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.

***

     Note that "Software" is defined as "software and associated
documentation files". It will suffice to have a licensing file, along
with the snapshot and virtual machine files, that has those notices in it.

> Does the agreement we signed for VPRI allow the transfer of
> distribution rights to SqF?

     The MIT license clearly grants that permission to anyone who
obtains the Software ("the right to use, copy, modify, merge, publish,
distribute, sublicense, and/or sell").

> Is VPRI planning to continue supporting our record keeping needs
> with regards to licensing...

     From my correspondence with Viewpoints' representative in this
matter, Kim Rose, it's my understanding that they do.

> ...in which case the official distribution of Squeak will come from
> them instead of SqF?

     Given the extremely fluid transitive granting of permission
afforded by the MIT license, this need not be the case. If you'd like a
declaration from Viewpoints that what the Squeak Foundation releases is
"official", I'd be happy to ask for one.

> Can we make this the number one priority of the new SqueakFoundation
> board?

     As far as I'm concerned, this has been the first priority of the
Squeak Foundation board since I joined it. Of course, progress on this
issue requires the cooperation of people outside the board, so it can
seem excruciatingly slow at times. Please bear with us.

> We should be getting and following real legal advice not guessing...

     That's what we're doing. I'm in contact with Viewpoints' legal
counsel, via Kim Rose, and with counsel at the Software Freedom Law Center.

> ...and if something needs to be put in place to accept new
> contributions then that should be done now.

     Yes, that's what we're doing.

> This is definitely one of those places where a simple defined policy
> can save a huge amount of work later.

     Yes indeed.


     I hope this was clear.


     thanks,

-C

[1] http://netjam.org/squeak/SqueakDistributionAgreement.pdf
[2] http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php

-- 
Craig Latta
improvisational musical informaticist
www.netjam.org
Smalltalkers do: [:it | All with: Class, (And love: it)]