On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 4:20 AM, Casey Ransberger <casey.obrien.r at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Frank: no, I think what Bert is saying is if you send #license to
> Smalltalk, you get the MIT license back as a byte string. We talked about
> this during the 4.0 effort. I also put it at the top of the .sources file
> as a sort of comment in the chunk format, which should be visible in at
> least that particular artifact (we did this because it was what made the
> SFC folks happy about taking us on at the time. By "we" I mean I did it, at
> the board's behest.)
>

I don't want to spark a debate but would it perhaps be good for Smalltalk
licence to begin with "The MIT License (MIT)"?  Otherwise it is implicit.


> Anyway, Chris M: I appreciate your point of view. Given that a mistake
> about something like this could prove (at best) a lot of work for someone
> to have to rip out some code (which may have grown dependencies) and (at
> worst) potential "Imperial entanglements," I hope folks don't mind too much
> my somewhat nannying position on the matter, or that I spoke up about it.
>
> Let's just be *very* careful. If I had my druthers, (I'd know what
> druthers were, what the hell are druthers again?) I'd move the #license
> selector and associated method to Object. I'd like to use this system in a
> business someday, and if we screw the licensing up, *I'm* going to
> inevitably have to fix it myself. So I'll retract my 'Period,' but
> cautiously. Craig's right, I'm not a judge.
>
> The good news is, everyone we have with a commit bit has the best
> intentions, and Monticello gives us a paper trail about who submitted what
> changes and thus a line of inquiry if there are ever questions about the
> provenance of a piece of code. I hope?
>
> I'm certainly not here to spread fear, uncertainty, or doubt. Just to
> advise caution with the best of intentions.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Casey
>
> On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 7:44 AM, Frank Shearar <frank.shearar at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 26 September 2014 15:08, Bert Freudenberg <bert at freudenbergs.de>
>> wrote:
>> > On 26.09.2014, at 16:05, Frank Shearar <frank.shearar at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 26 September 2014 14:15, Bert Freudenberg <bert at freudenbergs.de>
>> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> On 24.09.2014, at 15:50, Trygve Reenskaug <trygver at ifi.uio.no> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> I've googled "MIT Licence". There appears to be several and the most
>> important one should probably be called something else?
>> >>>> So what, precisely, is "the MIT licence" that I am bound by when I
>> make a Squeak contribution?
>> >>>
>> >>> Smalltalk license
>> >>
>> >> Specifically, ...
>> >
>> > I specifically meant you should print "Smalltalk licence".
>>
>> Then we really ought to change source.squeak.org/trunk which
>> specifically says "MIT", and the licence I pasted.
>>
>> frank
>>
>> > - Bert -
>>
>>
>
>
>
>


-- 
best,
Eliot
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20140927/c2254a3f/attachment.htm