On 23/03/2008, Andreas Raab <andreas.raab at gmx.de> wrote:
> stephane ducasse wrote:
>  > What past contributions? When does it stop?
>  > There is no date nor versions mentioned on the paper I signed.
>
>
> I don't know what you signed but the Software Distribution Agreement
>  that I signed with VPRI had an effective date on it (every legal
>  document that I've ever signed had a date on it).
>
>
>  > 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?
>
>
> You don't unless he says so.
>
>
>  > So what is the process to know which piece of code is under which license?
>
>
> By looking at the accompanying licenses. I think it's fair to assume
>  that explicit contributions (such as when posted to Mantis) can be
>  assumed to be public domain and as such can be distributed under the MIT
>  license. However, just because I signed the agreement with VPRI in the
>  past doesn't mean that all the code that I may write in the future is
>  under MIT.
>
>
>  > Reading your answer it seems that the mess with Squeak license will
>  > never stop.
>
>
> The way to "stop it" (whatever that means) is to be explicit about it.
>  For example, require a one-liner in Mantis saying "fix contributed under
>  MIT license" by the person posting it.
>

Do we really want to see non-MIT fixes in Mantis? :)
I think, Mantis should state exclusively at front page, that all
contributions are going under MIT. If people don't want their code to
be released under it, they can either release as separate package or
don't release it at all :)

>  Cheers,
>
>    - Andreas
>
>
>


-- 
Best regards,
Igor Stasenko AKA sig.