> From: David T. Lewis
> Sent: Monday, September 22, 2014 8:54 PM
> 
> On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 09:47:48PM +0100, Frank Shearar wrote:
> > Actually, what process do we have in place to onboard new
> > contributors? I know the old agreement is at
> > http://netjam.org/squeak/SqueakDistributionAgreement.pdf - is that
> > still the right document? To whom would the new contributor mail the
> > signed agreement? It used to be Viewpoints, but now would it be
> > someone in the SFC?
> 
> The signed contributor agreement was a part of the process of establishing
> the current Squeak licensing. I signed one of them myself, as did everyone
> else who was known to have contributed anything (large or small) to the
> image up to that point.
> 
> Since the licensing was tidied up, we have all been able to proceed under
> the current policies, which amount to making sure that all subsequent
> contributions are provided under an MIT license. Every Squeak developer
> with trunk commit rights has agreed to this, and we all work to the best
of
> our ability to ensure that both the letter and the spirit of this
agreement
> are faithfully preserved.
> 
> While it can sometimes seem annoying and silly, it in reality this is
critically
> important to preserve the integrity of the Squeak license. That is what
> makes it possible for all of us to use Squeak for any personal or
commercial
> purpose without fear of legal problems, and it is what allows each of us
to
> contribute to Squeak without fear that our work will later be lost to some
> silly legal dispute.
> 
> To me it is a privilege to be able to be a part of the Squeak community,
and
> it is worth a little bit of annoying license checking to ensure that we
will all
> be able to continue doing so in the years to come.
> 
> Dave
> 

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong here (IANAL) my understanding was
that those agreements were only necessary to relicense the code to MIT.
Once it was relicensed it was important to tell contributors that their
contributions were MIT (for example explicitly on a code repository and in
other places that explain the licensing).  I did not believe that signed
agreements continued to be necessary going forward in that environment.  Of
course someone could release code into inbox  or mantis or somewhere else
with a statement that the code has a different license and it would be
important that anyone integrating that code reject the contribution, (or if
anyone sees such a notice to report it so that it can be removed).  But the
short of it is that all code from the relicensing going forward is MIT, all
places where contributions can be made should be clearly labeled with the
license so that it is clear that anyone contributing code is doing so and is
only allowed to do so under the same license.  

All the best,

Ron Teitelbaum