Hi Michael--

 > Could I get my understanding of the licensing situation verified
 > please.

      Sure (I'm coordinating licensing issues on behalf of the Squeak 
leadership, with the help of contributors, Viewpoints, the Software 
Freedom Conservancy and others).

 > Squeak 1.1 was originally released under the Squeak license. It has
 > since been relicensed under the Apache 2.0 license. All changes made
 > since Squeak 1.1 were originally under the Squeak license.

      Some contributors specified license terms, and some did not. Of 
those who did, some specified the Squeak license, and some did not. To 
remedy this, we're trying to get all contributors to agree to a single, 
simple set of license terms which can be sublicensed if necessary[MIT].

 > All changes made by people who have signed the license agreement are
 > now under the MIT license. All changes made by people who have
 > /not/ signed the license agreement remain under the Squeak license.

      No, if a contributor has not specified license terms, then they 
have granted no license.

 > So, does this mean that all of Squeak, except the contributions by
 > people who haven't signed the license agreement, is now (as of Squeak
 > 3.10) released under the Apache 2.0 license?

      No; we have yet to make a new release which is clear about its 
license terms. Also note that the contributor agreement is between the 
contributor and Viewpoints.

 > Are class definitions and documentation changes also taken into
 > account when working out who the contributors are?

      Yes.

 > Were the changes made at Disney released under the Squeak license?
 > Does Disney own the changes made, or do the individual contributers
 > working for Disney own the changes?

      We await a strong legal opinion about this from either the authors 
or Disney (hopefully both).

 > Are the changes made at Disney now released under MIT?

      This is not clear yet, unfortunately. In particular, the identity 
of the copyright holder is not clear.

 > How do you work out what changes were made at Disney (in the case that
 > they are problematic)?

      One works them out with the timestamp and authorship information 
we have from the time.

 > Could I take a calculated risk and state that my work is hereby
 > release under the Apache 2.0 license...

      It really would be simpler if you signed and returned the 
contributor agreement[1] to Viewpoints.

      I am often available for discussion at the #squeak IRC channel on 
irc.freenode.net.


      thanks,

-C

[1] http://netjam.org/squeak/contributors

--
Craig Latta
improvisational musical informaticist
www.netjam.org
Smalltalkers do: [:it | All with: Class, (And love: it)]