nicolas cellier wrote:
> Andreas Raab a écrit :
>> That makes no sense. The agreement was exclusively for past 
>> contributions to the image and did explicitly not cover external 
>> packages or future contributions.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>   - Andreas
>>
>> stephane ducasse wrote:
>>> Hi guys
>>>
>>> I would like to get the official list of persons that signed the MIT 
>>> license release for Squeak.
>>> We should get that list officially posted so that user of packages 
>>> can get the garantee
>>> that the code is under MIT.
>>>
>>> Stef
>>>
>>>
>>
>
> I do not feel like putting a license statement in each and every .cs i 
> upload for patching the kernel. These problems are becoming quite boring.
>
> There could be a clear message stating that publishing code on mantis 
> implies MIT license, unless explicitely specified.
>
> For external packages, this is different, SqueakMap has all what is 
> needed to clearly state the license, squeak source too. It's a less 
> boring operation than on mantis, because you do it once for the whole 
> package, not for every single patch.
>
> Nicolas
>
>
>
I suggested a while ago that we could make license information a part of 
the object system. I'm not sure how to implement that though ;-)
Karl