[squeak-dev] Re: Request for the foundation

Andreas Raab andreas.raab at gmx.de
Sun Mar 23 19:48:35 UTC 2008


stephane ducasse wrote:
> Here is what most of the people signed:

Indeed. That's what I signed, too. Says there, very first sentence:
   "is entered into as of __________________ (the “Effective Date”)"

>> I don't know what you signed but the Software Distribution Agreement 
>> that I signed with VPRI had an effective date on it (every legal 
>> document that I've ever signed had a date on it).
> 
> I can imagine but I guess that most people signed the same as mine.

And I hope that most people read it more carefully than you did. I 
certainly would not have signed any agreement that would give away my 
rights in the future.

>>> So what is the process to know which piece of code is under which 
>>> license?
>>
>> By looking at the accompanying licenses. I think it's fair to assume 
>> that explicit contributions (such as when posted to Mantis) can be 
>> assumed to be public domain and as such can be distributed under the 
>> MIT license. However, just because I signed the agreement with VPRI in 
>> the past doesn't mean that all the code that I may write in the future 
>> is under MIT.
> 
> sure
> Now I want to know what is the situation with code that was harvested in 
> 3.8, 3.9. 3.10 and further on.

Given that 3.9 was released fall '06 and the agreements went out later 
than that it's probably safe to assume that contributions to 3.8 and 3.9 
are covered by it.

>>> Reading your answer it seems that the mess with Squeak license will 
>>> never stop.
>>
>> The way to "stop it" (whatever that means) is to be explicit about it. 
>> For example, require a one-liner in Mantis saying "fix contributed 
>> under MIT license" by the person posting it.
> 
> I think that we should pay attention to have such information not in the 
> source code itself.

I think you are overreacting.

Cheers,
   - Andreas




More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list