> I remember we had such discussions before , a most 'secure' way was to
> have 2 roles - one is implementor, another is overseer. An overseer
> looks at problematic method and describing what method should do to
> 'implementor'. Then implementor makes own implementation without
> looking at current implementation at all.
> Despite how good it sounds, IMO, it is not really works in practice.
> First, since given method already exists in image and its source
> available for reading at any time, how any implementor can prove that
> he never saw original implementation and claim that new implementation
> is based on his own mental effort?
> Second, describing a method could also be seen as an illegal act,
> because your description is based on knowledge of the method sources.
> And knowledge is intellectual property :)

  Let us not make unnecessary fuss and just carefully see if there is
such problematic methods for Squeak 4.0.

  FWIW, we have not found such methods (that are not removeable or
revertable or just with small fixes) for Etoys 4.0.

  And this is from Matthew's another email but:

> I've done the first step and done a full audit, using Yoshiki's
> tools [1], of all the code
> in Squeak 3.10.2, with the exception of four packages:
> - Monticello
> - SUnit, TestRunner, and SUnitImproved
> - Universes
> - Traits

  BTW, as for SUnit, the (real) original SUnit is flagged as "Public
Domain" and the Squeak version was one time under SqL.  But Sames and
JPerline sent us the signature so we can consider it clean.  And I
didn't think there was anybody for Monticello and Universes and Traits
that matters (I could be wrong).  Even if there are a few, I'd imagine
that getting signature from them is much easier to get ones from much
earlier contributors.

-- Yoshiki