On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 8:26 AM, Ken Causey
<ken@kencausey.com> wrote:
This is going to be a rather long email but I ask you to at least skim
if you have even a little interest in the relicensing/Squeak 4.0 effort.
<snip - some guy called djm made a trivial change but has not signed the MIT agreement>
So the question is what do I do with this method, which is currently
distributed as version 5, so that it does not infringe on djm's rights
to maintain version 2 as SqueakL? Admittedly it's unlikely that djm
actually wants this right, but lacking a clear statement to the
contrary, it's the default we have to assume.
If somebody can sue you because you relicensed somebody's SqueakL one-liner to an MIT one-liner without his permission, then I opine that your country's legal system is broken.