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.

It depends on how you perceive Squeak.
I am guessing Steph is perceiving Squeak in a modularisation process, 
where class categories as Etoys are removed from the image and provided 
as external packages. In that case it makes perfectly sense.

It will be helpful if we could get a little more light on the 
relicensing effort. Currently, I have the feeling we are stuck, but may 
be this is a misinterpretation because of lack of information, from my 
unability to read regularly the list or my lack of understanding.

Hilaire

> 
> 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
>>
>>
> 
> 
>