Michael van der Gulik asks:
Could I get my understanding of the licensing situation verified please:

Squeak 1.1 was originally released under the Squeak license. It has since
been relicensed under the Apache 2.0 license.
All changes made since Squeak 1.1 were originally under the Squeak license.
All changes made by people who have signed[1] the license agreement [2] are
now under the MIT license.
All changes made by people who have /not/ signed[3] the license agreement
remain under the Squeak license.

> So, does this mean that all of Squeak, except the contributions by people
who haven't signed the license
> agreement, is now (as of Squeak 3.10) released under the Apache 2.0
license?

Surely it means that most of Squeak 3.10 ("most" meaning "everything touched
by a signatory since Squeak 1.1") is under the MIT licence? (Given that
http://netjam.org/squeak/SqueakDistributionAgreement.pdf mentions MIT, not
Apache 2.0.)

> I'm asking this because I'm about to embark on some significant changes to
the classes in Kernel and Collections
> for my SecureSqueak project. I want the end result of this work to be
released under the Apache 2.0 license, if
> possible.  These changes are scoped to Kernel, Collections and a handful
of other classes.

If I understand correctly, if you wanted these changes included in the
Squeak "core" (whatever that means), the changes would have to be MIT
licenced.

frank