Frank: no, I think what Bert is saying is if you send #license to
Smalltalk, you get the MIT license back as a byte string. We talked about
this during the 4.0 effort. I also put it at the top of the .sources file
as a sort of comment in the chunk format, which should be visible in at
least that particular artifact (we did this because it was what made the
SFC folks happy about taking us on at the time. By "we" I mean I did it, at
the board's behest.)

Anyway, Chris M: I appreciate your point of view. Given that a mistake
about something like this could prove (at best) a lot of work for someone
to have to rip out some code (which may have grown dependencies) and (at
worst) potential "Imperial entanglements," I hope folks don't mind too much
my somewhat nannying position on the matter, or that I spoke up about it.

Let's just be *very* careful. If I had my druthers, (I'd know what druthers
were, what the hell are druthers again?) I'd move the #license selector and
associated method to Object. I'd like to use this system in a business
someday, and if we screw the licensing up, *I'm* going to inevitably have
to fix it myself. So I'll retract my 'Period,' but cautiously. Craig's
right, I'm not a judge.

The good news is, everyone we have with a commit bit has the best
intentions, and Monticello gives us a paper trail about who submitted what
changes and thus a line of inquiry if there are ever questions about the
provenance of a piece of code. I hope?

I'm certainly not here to spread fear, uncertainty, or doubt. Just to
advise caution with the best of intentions.

Cheers,

Casey

On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 7:44 AM, Frank Shearar <frank.shearar at gmail.com>
wrote:

> On 26 September 2014 15:08, Bert Freudenberg <bert at freudenbergs.de> wrote:
> > On 26.09.2014, at 16:05, Frank Shearar <frank.shearar at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 26 September 2014 14:15, Bert Freudenberg <bert at freudenbergs.de>
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On 24.09.2014, at 15:50, Trygve Reenskaug <trygver at ifi.uio.no> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> I've googled "MIT Licence". There appears to be several and the most
> important one should probably be called something else?
> >>>> So what, precisely, is "the MIT licence" that I am bound by when I
> make a Squeak contribution?
> >>>
> >>> Smalltalk license
> >>
> >> Specifically, ...
> >
> > I specifically meant you should print "Smalltalk licence".
>
> Then we really ought to change source.squeak.org/trunk which
> specifically says "MIT", and the licence I pasted.
>
> frank
>
> > - Bert -
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20140927/2714038d/attachment.htm