With regard to these copyright issues the good people have raised, though:

Do these things block relicensing? If so, I'll address them. Most
likely I would rip those methods out. 4.0 only needs to work well
enough to fix, if you think about it. It's neither a quality release
nor a feature release. It's a freedom release. If these things don't
impede relicensing, they're outside the scope of 4.0.

For those interested in my philosophy regarding this release, here it is:

Squeak is like a ball. My job is to run as fast as I can, and touch it
down past a particular line on the AstroTurf, without letting anything
stop me on the way.

The details aren't important, and it doesn't matter if the ball takes
a tiny scuff any more than it matters if I have to break my legs doing
it. Most certainly, the time to discuss tactics was over before I
started running.

I would appreciate it very much if we could keep the threads marked
[Squeak 4.0] clear of chatter unrelated to obstacles to, and
objectives of, the relicense release.

Thank you for your support!

On Friday, February 26, 2010, Andreas Raab <andreas.raab at gmx.de> wrote:
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

-- 
Ron