Sigh, more license discussions. What fun.

I am not a lawyer, though I do get to shoot them sometimes in my other  
job.

a) the licensing agreement that people have been signing (thank you  
people!) only explicitly covers past code. It doesn't mention future  
code. See http://www.netjam.org/squeak/contributors/ and click the  
link  'get a copy of it here' to read it for yourself.

b) there are still a number of contributors that have not signed, or  
that have signed but we don't know about it yet - see http://www.netjam.org/squeak/contributors/missingSignatories 
  (and this list is certainly a few items out right now)

c) there are some sets of initials to which we can't map email  
addresses - see http://www.netjam.org/squeak/contributors/missing (and  
again, we know a few items are incorrect)

d) until we are able to trace the initials attached to every revision  
of every method in the current image and match those to signed  
licences the SFLC will not be content.

e) we need to modify all the tools/sites such as SM, SqS so that it is  
made completely clear what license is in use for *new* contributions.  
Anything that would logically go into any typical default image *must*  
be MIT licensed.

f) it seems pretty clear to me that any expanded image - such as  
FunSqueak - that people would like to see distributed by any means  
connected to the foundation would need to require clear licensing for  
every method added to the core. One of the reasons for trying to build  
a smaller core image was to reduce the volume of code needing checking  
and clearing.

g) there is still a bunch of work to do

tim
--
tim Rowledge; tim at rowledge.org; http://www.rowledge.org/tim
Don't document the program; program the document.