[squeak-dev] A license in method/comment stamps

Ian Trudel ian.trudel at gmail.com
Thu Jul 23 10:20:58 UTC 2009


2009/7/23 Igor Stasenko <siguctua at gmail.com>:
>> That was my point, Igor. Most Open Source projects have the license
>> used on their website and a header with the license in each file.
>> That's it. Plain and simple.
>>
> unfortunately, we don't have a kind of granularity named 'source
> file', where you can put the 2-3 kb size header with license comment .
> :)
> We have MC, .cs , .st , .pr , .source , .changes , .image (+
> DeltaStreams will appear someday )
> they are all files, but in detail, they could contain a mix of
> properly licensed & other code.

Naturally. I am just trying to put things into perspective here, if
only for better understanding. Another important thing is that every
developer working on community trunk MUST agree to commit with MIT
license before being granted access to this repository.

The tests and inbox repositories are certainly different considering
it has no access restriction. The license is clear to me and I have
even suggested to be added to the manifesto, which was then added. But
it's still necessary to read the manifesto in order to learn how to
use the repositories.

Your idea to stamp classes with extra information is still
interesting. It would have been great to stamp MC instead but they
tend to include a lot more than only delta...

Ian.

-- 
http://mecenia.blogspot.com/



More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list