On 2/27/2010 2:58 AM, Ronald Spengler wrote:
> Delegating to another class just adds complexity IMO; the only reason
> #license exists is because I didn't want to clutter #condenseSources
> with it, and we need that method to put the license statement at the
> top of the sources file. I think it makes sense therefore to keep
> these methods close to one another.
>
> It was the simplest thing that could possibly work.
>
> In any event, we can change it in 4.1 if we don't like it. In the
> meantime, though, I just want to wrap this thing and ship it. We can
> argue about what color the bikeshed should be after Squeak is free, eh
> compadres?

Plus, you're the release manager and at this point this is a release 
issue (in fact it's a release blocker since we can't ship 4.0 before we 
have a resolution). So it's your choice how to resolve it for 4.0.

Cheers,
   - Andreas

> On Friday, February 26, 2010, Juan Vuletich<juan at jvuletich.org>  wrote:
>> Yes. We already have Smalltalk copyright. It mentions Xerox and Apple. And we also have Utilities copyrightNotice that only mentions Apple. They it doesn't agree with the posted license that only mentions The Squeak Community. What would be the proper copyright notice and why?
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Juan Vuletich
>>
>> Igor Stasenko wrote:
>>
>> Heh..
>> Don't forget about copyright as well :)
>>
>>
>> On 27 February 2010 01:26, Andreas Raab<andreas.raab at gmx.de>  wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 2/27/2010 12:21 AM, keith wrote:
>>
>>
>> I agree with the overload aspect but [Smalltalk license] is just to
>> good not to use it.
>>
>>
>> But its not really Smalltalk's licence it is "this system's licence" how
>> about
>>
>>
>> My point is it's idiomatic (the Python folks call it "pythonic"). Just
>> compare:
>>
>> Smalltalk license.
>> SmalltalkImage current license.
>> SystemVersion current license.
>>
>> Which one would you guess at?
>>
>>
>>
>> SqueaksLicence yo just print like
>>
>>
>> Totally :-)
>>
>> Cheers,
>>   - Andreas
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>