So just to finish off the discussion, the SFC as a general rule
suggest not using a CLA (Contributor Licence Agreement), feeling that
CLAs don't offer much protection, and cost a lot. You can read more
about the topic here:
http://sfconservancy.org/blog/2014/jun/09/do-not-need-cla/

So unless they the SFC change their minds and think that Squeak would,
at some later point in time, benefit from a CLA, we're done.

frank

On 24 September 2014 21:57, Chris Muller <asqueaker at gmail.com> wrote:
>> None of this is telling me anything about whether the code in question is available under a compatible license. Can we contact the author? Does anyone here know anything about the process of submitting code to the Cincom public store?
>>
>> That's what I'd like to see. Some facts. I love Squeak. Like anything you love, you protect it. If I'm acting like an overprotective parent, I'll know as soon as I see some facts about this stuff.
>>
>> Reiterate: code must be submitted under a compatible license or we shouldn't take it on. Period.
>
> Yes however I don't think we should say "Period" because
> risk-management is not only about protecting our interests but
> consuming our opportunities when the risk is reasonably low.
> Copyright holders can release under a non-standard license if they
> want, the burden is on the adopters, us, to assess the risk of making
> a derivative work of it.  In this case, I felt the risk was
> low-probability and low-impact.
>
> Yoshiki reminded us about the possibility that someday we may not be
> able to get a clarification.  In that situation we should assess the
> situation, the "grayness", and make a judgement call.
>
>>
>> C
>>
>>> On Sep 24, 2014, at 2:50 AM, Craig Latta <craig at netjam.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>     Dozens of people wrote:
>>>
>>>> I am not a lawyer.
>>>
>>>     More importantly, you are not a *judge*. :)
>>>
>>>
>>> -C
>>>
>>> --
>>> Craig Latta
>>> netjam.org
>>> +31 6 2757 7177 (SMS ok)
>>> + 1 415 287 3547 (no SMS)
>>>
>>>
>>
>