On 2/27/2010 3:32 AM, Ronald Spengler wrote:
> 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.

It's a good question. The exact phrasing of the copyright notice in the 
license might matter. Or it might not. I just don't know. FWIW, here is 
what we said in the Croquet license:

	Copyright © 2002-2007 by The Croquet Consortium, Inc. and other 
individual, corporate, and institutional contributors who have 
collectively contributed elements of the CroquetTM software code to the 
Croquet Project. CroquetTM is a trademark of The Croquet Consortium, Inc..

We could adopt something similar and say, e.g.,

	Copyright © 1996-2010 by the individual, corporate, and institutional 
contributors who have collectively contributed elements to this software.

> 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.

This is by *far* the best description of the job I've seen :-)

Cheers,
   - Andreas

> 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>