Ronald Spengler wrote:
> This sounds like something I can handle.

Great, thanks!

> Two more questions:
> 
> Obviously ASAP, but what's my deadline?

Ultimately when the SFC comes through; this could be fairly soon. It'd 
be good if we had a draft 4.0 beta within a week; two weeks most (I had 
hoped that someone would take a shot at it last weekend :-)

> Who's my point of contact / source for legalese? Or shall I simply
> compose a blurb and paste the MIT license at the top, then post that
> to the list for peer review?

The board is your contact/source. Randal specifically, but at this point 
we all have pretty good visibility of the process. For the license I 
think we should do something along the lines of listing both licenses, 
MIT first, then Apache 2.0 in the sources file like here:

---------------------------------------------------------------------

'Squeak License Information:

The MIT License

Copyright (c) 1996-2010 The Squeak Community, All Rights Reserved.

Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a 
copy of this software and associated documentation files (the 
"Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including 
without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, 
distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to 
permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to 
the following conditions:

The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included 
in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.

THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS 
OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF 
MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. 
IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY 
CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, 
TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE 
SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN
THE SOFTWARE.

Portions of Squeak are covered by the following license

Copyright (c) 1996 Apple Computer, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the "License"); you may 
not use this file except in compliance with the License. You may obtain 
a copy of the License at

    http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0

Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software 
distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS, 
WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied. 
See the License for the specific language governing permissions and 
limitations under the License.'

---------------------------------------------------------------------
(note the single quotes around it which allow us to quote the licenses 
verbatim at the beginning of the sources file)

I think the license header is pretty safe because it's literally the MIT 
license (http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php) and it's 
literally the license header required in the Apple agreement 
(http://ftp.squeak.org/docs/AppleApacheRelicense.pdf) The only thing I 
have changed is the year and copyright notice for MIT. (arguably one 
could say there's no such thing as The Squeak Community (tm) but the 
fact is that everyone's signed the relicensing so I think we got our 
asses covered)

In any case, it would be good if this were a repeatable process just in 
case the SFC has specific wishes regarding the license header.

Cheers,
   - Andreas

> On Monday, February 22, 2010, Andreas Raab <andreas.raab at gmx.de> wrote:
>> Ronald Spengler wrote:
>>
>> I need a list of requirements if I'm going to lead anything (I don't
>> know exactly what must be done.) I'd consider it, but I need to make
>> sure I can get it done before I say yes to that.
>>
>>
>> Just like I said earlier, the list of requirements is very short. We need:
>> - A version that has the identical code to 3.10.2 and ONLY the code from 3.10.2 since this is what we have discussed with SFC (requires condensing sources)
>> - The image must have proper licensing information and let people know about what happened (i.e., that it's a relicensed version of 3.10.2)
>> - The image should be packaged properly for the various platforms
>>
>> That's about all that comes to mind in terms of requirements. Randal - are there any other requirements you can think of?
>>
>> Cheers,
>>   - Andreas
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 10:12 PM, Andreas Raab <andreas.raab at gmx.de> wrote:
>>
>> Ronald Spengler wrote:
>>
>> I'm in for team-member. Let's do this!
>>
>> Wonderful! How would you feel about leading the effort? (it is really not
>> all that much work :-) Me and probably anyone else will be happy to help in
>> any way we can but it'd be good if the board had someone who feels
>> responsible for getting it done.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>  - Andreas
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 12:30 AM, Andreas Raab <andreas.raab at gmx.de>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Folks -
>>
>> This is part one of two messages about upcoming releases.
>>
>> The Squeak 4.0 release is right around the corner. It is the MIT/Apache
>> re-licensed version of 3.10.2. We are currently in (hopefully final)
>> discussions with SFC and will soon be ready to finalize matters.
>>
>> We've talked about the 4.0 release it in the board and effectively we
>> need a
>> release manager and/or release team which can take care of the following
>> actions:
>> - Add a new welcome screen that explains the new status
>> - Condense sources so that only relicensed content is included
>> - Repackage the image for the various platforms
>> This is straightforward, simple work that can basically be done right
>> away.
>> In fact, it might be good to roll a 4.0beta straight from 3.10.2 and have
>> that available for final discussions with SFC.
>>
>> Since the work isn't all that much (it can probably be done in a few
>> hours
>> on a lazy Sunday morning), this is a *great* way for anyone in the
>> community, even with relatively little experience in Squeak hacking, to
>> help
>> the community along.
>>
>> Please volunteer for either 4.0 release manager or 4.0 release team
>> member
>> role. The board would like to find a community member to take the lead
>> since
>> the board will be busy anyway (running for the board takes its toll, the
>> SFC
>> discussions take time, and then some of us also would like to get some
>> hacking done :-) So don't be shy.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>  - Andreas
>>
> 
>