On 24/03/2008, Andreas Raab <andreas.raab at gmx.de> wrote:
> 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.
>

Seems like never ending story to me (while one people trying to fix
license issues, others can contribute code which can appear in release
in sneaky manner - via Mantis, mailing lists , ftp, wiki and other
public sources).
It looks like that we need to put a BIG BANNER everywhere: whenever
someone provides a code for squeak, be it in mantis, in wiki, on ftp ,
on mailing list it is assumed that given code provided under MIT
license, if not stated other exclusively. And we need to put this BIG
BANNER right now, otherwise this licensing swamp will never dry out.


>  Cheers,
>
>    - Andreas
>
>
>


-- 
Best regards,
Igor Stasenko AKA sig.