On Mon, Feb 09, 2009 at 02:35:52PM -0500, Matthew Fulmer wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 09, 2009 at 10:56:36AM -0800, Yoshiki Ohshima wrote:
> >   Hi, Ken,
> > 
> > > Thanks to the efforts of many including Yoshiki Ohshima and Matthew
> > > Fulmer we have made some real progress on a 'license clean' version of
> > > Squeak.  But we are now at the phase where we have some code for which
> > > it appears we are not going to get a relicensing agreement.  So at this
> > > point it's either remove it or replace it.
> > > 
> > > Thanks to Matthew publishing the history tools I've started to try to
> > > help out with this and have quickly learned that I really don't know
> > > what to do.  I'm going to present an example here and I'm asking you for
> > > your considered opinion.
> > 
> >   At least, For the methods that also exists in Etoys 4.0, I don't
> > think it is fruitful to bring in more scrutiny...
> 
> That's a good point. If the audit lists a method that is part of
> etoys 4.0, a reasonable fix is to file it out of etoys 4.0 and
> into 3.10.
> 
> http://tinlizzie.org/olpc/etoys-dev-4.0.zip

If you take this approach and find that the source code is the
same in etoys as in 3.10, please include the fix in your
relicense change set anyway. This will make it easier when we
port the relicense to Pharo and Cobalt, since anything included
in a relicensing change set is guaranteed clean.

-- 
Matthew Fulmer -- http://mtfulmer.wordpress.com/