Here is what most of the people signed:

SOFTWARE DISTRIBUTION AGREEMENT
This Distribution Agreement (“Agreement”) is entered into as of  
__________________
(the “Effective Date”) by and between ______________________________  
(“Supplier”), whose
address is  
____________________________________________________________________
and Viewpoints Research Institute, Inc., a California nonprofit  
institution with its principal place
of business at 1209 Grand Central Avenue,  Glendale, CA 91201  
(“Distributor”).  Together,
Distributor and Supplier are referred to herein as the “Parties” and  
each individually as a “Party.”

The Parties agree that Supplier has contributed source code (the  
“Supplier’s Code”) for
the open source media authoring software known as “Squeak” (the  
“Software”), and that
Supplier retains all rights in and to Supplier’s Code, aside from the  
rights expressly granted to
Distributor in this Agreement.  The Parties acknowledge that the  
Software in its entirety is a
collective work containing source code contributions from several  
authors, and that Supplier’s
Code is only a small component part of the Software work as a whole.

Supplier hereby grants Distributor a perpetual, irrevocable, non- 
exclusive, royalty-free,
worldwide license to distribute the Software, and specifically the  
Supplier’s Code therein, to end
users, subject to the license agreement commonly known as the “MIT  
License” which is
provided at the following URL:

  <http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php>.


       SUPPLIER


There is no version mentioned, no date.
So my question still holds and I would like the squeakfoundation to  
give a clear answer.

>>
> 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).

I can imagine but I guess that most people signed the same as mine.

>> 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.

sure
Now I want to know what is the situation with code that was harvested  
in 3.8, 3.9. 3.10 and further on.

>> 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.

I think that we should pay attention to have such information not in  
the source code itself.

Stef