Igor Stasenko wrote:
> On 23/03/2008, Andreas Raab <andreas.raab at gmx.de> wrote:
>> 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.
>>
> 
> Do we really want to see non-MIT fixes in Mantis? :)

No. But I think it's important to be explicit about it until such a time 
when it is understood that everything that goes up on Mantis is MIT. And 
really, if you'd like to contribute to Squeak, is it too much asked to 
throw in one line so that we know it's all good?

> I think, Mantis should state exclusively at front page, that all
> contributions are going under MIT. If people don't want their code to
> be released under it, they can either release as separate package or
> don't release it at all :)

True. But the problem is that Squeak in the past didn't use MIT and one 
could rightfully argue that a submission was done in good faith under 
the assumption it would be Squeak-L. To avoid this, and to educate 
people about the license change I think asking for a one-line 
clarification is a good way to make sure we have our house in order.

Cheers,
   - Andreas