What past contributions? When does it stop?
There is no date nor versions mentioned on the paper I signed.
So why 3.8 and not 3.9 would be covered by my signature
If edgar harvested code of damien (which he did) and that code is not  
in a separate package
where do I know that the license of damien for this piece of code is  
MIT if this is not the document
that viewpoints received?
So what is the process to know which piece of code is under which  
license?
Reading your answer it seems that the mess with Squeak license will  
never stop.
May be some people have interest at the end in this cool situation.

Stef


On Mar 22, 2008, at 8:50 PM, Andreas Raab wrote:

> 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
>
>
>