Martin v. Löwis skrev:
>> Should we not have a class License and method licenseMIT ?
>> I think we have been sloppy with distributing the license with Squeak 
>> in the past. I can't recall any download wich include the Squeak 
>> License or any other for that sake.
>
> Reviewing the Squeak license, it appears that it includes no requirement
> to actually include the license in the software, so not including it
> wasn't a license violation (although "sloppy" may still apply). This is
> different with the MIT license: it explicitly requires inclusion with
> the software. Given that the MIT license is a template, so each
> contributor will provide her own version of it, this gives a long list
> of licenses to include. 
Well it says:
'The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included 
in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.'

So it should be enough to have one license in the image ?
Maybe all packages/modules should be dependent on a License module ?
Patches and bugfixes, I don't know, depends on how substantial they are ?

Licenses are a source of endless discussions :-)

Karl