On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 4:38 PM, Ian Trudel<ian.trudel at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello Igor,
>
> This idea is interesting. Would you describe a typical usage scenario?
> It could be all right as long as one doesn't have to retype (or being
> reminded) the license each and every time.
>
> However, the new community development model manifesto has a section
> about the license. The trunk on the web has a link to this manifesto.
> There's so much one can do to protect himself. But when shall it stop?
>
> Even a pop-up Window stipulating that the upcoming commit would be
> under MIT license with an "I agree" button would probably not stand
> any better. A paranoid mind could easily think that a malicious person
> could as well insert proprietary code and commit. That would be no
> easier to determine this until it blows into our face.
>
> Ian.
>
> 2009/7/22 Igor Stasenko <siguctua at gmail.com>:
>> Hello list,
>>
>> on a recent SOB meeting someone recalled the idea of adding a
>> 'license' field to method stamps.
>> I proposed this maybe a year ago, but at that time, it was seem to
>> have a short life period, because of upcoming Spoon release, which
>> contains a full method history and supports a much better organized
>> method history/author/license tracking.
>>
>> In our current state, when we have a /trunk , we need, however some
>> kind of assurance that all submissions going to trunk is
>> license-clean.
>> So, it is like that proposed change gives us a quick & fast recipe how
>> to assure that.
>>
>> Please review  the mantis entry: http://bugs.squeak.org/view.php?id=6993
>>
>> And lets discuss openly, the pros and cons of this change.
>>
>> --
>> Best regards,
>> Igor Stasenko AKA sig.
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> http://mecenia.blogspot.com/
>
>