I don't believe that anyone who has contributed to Squeak in the past
decade will suddenly sue. I won't :-)
But I agree with Christoph, how are you supposed to know the implicit
contributors license agreement on a page you never actually have to
visit?
It might be a risk, and I wanted to point that out.

This does not change anything about the font licenses, does it? Even
if the copyright holders gave Squeak explicit permission to distribute
the fonts under the MIT license, there should be a paper trail for
that.


Am Sa., 15. Feb. 2020 um 19:56 Uhr schrieb Thiede, Christoph
<Christoph.Thiede at student.hpi.uni-potsdam.de>:
>
> > If you look at repository pages such as  http://source.squeak.org/@BRc0D5IGtckyh1t4/_O5e3cRU you will see that it is clearly marked that contributions to the inbox are automatically under the MIT license. This is true also for Trunk etc. No problem.
>
>
> I'm not a lawyer, but how can you assume that anyone who wants to contribute to Squeak visits this page? I never did.
> There are other ways to learn how to contribute to Squeak, such as verbal propaganda or the wiki.
> ________________________________
> Von: Squeak-dev <squeak-dev-bounces at lists.squeakfoundation.org> im Auftrag von tim Rowledge <tim at rowledge.org>
> Gesendet: Samstag, 15. Februar 2020 19:39:31
> An: The general-purpose Squeak developers list
> Betreff: Re: [squeak-dev] Content licenses (was: The Inbox: Tools-ct.940.mcz)
>
>
>
> > On 2020-02-15, at 8:36 AM, Jakob Reschke <forums.jakob at resfarm.de> wrote:
> >
> > Am Sa., 15. Feb. 2020 um 16:40 Uhr schrieb Thiede, Christoph
> > <Christoph.Thiede at student.hpi.uni-potsdam.de>:
> >>
> >> Hm, probably the simplest solution would be a short disclaimer in the PreferenceWizardMorph ("By using this image, I confirm that I have accepted the Squeak contributing license agreement and that I will ensure that everyone to whom I share it did so too")?
> >
> > Hmm, but you can develop commercial software in Squeak after all. And
> > you can produce code and publish it under a different license (under
> > GPL for example). It is not so much about using an image as about
> > submitting specifically to the Squeak Inbox, Trunk, or a maintained
> > release.
> >
> >> No one dislikes Smalltalk :-)
> >
> > ...except for the managers looking at legacy maintenance or license
> > cost, or the risk of not finding enough affordable staff. Or
> > unfamiliar developers forced to maintain a legacy product with an
> > archaic Smalltalk version.
>
> We went through all this decades ago, so let's try not to fall into that were-rabbit hole again.
>
> If you look at repository pages such as  http://source.squeak.org/@BRc0D5IGtckyh1t4/_O5e3cRU you will see that it is clearly marked that contributions to the inbox are automatically under the MIT license. This is true also for Trunk etc. No problem. Same thing on squeaksource.com except that creators can specify different licenses, which are then reported on the project page.
>
> There is, for example, one problematic project listed (openqwaq) which shoes as 'GPLv2', which is a pity. And there are some Seaside parts show 'GPLv3' for some reason. The viral nature of the GPL type licenses is rather obnoxious in the context of an integrated live programming system since you do not produce a narrowly constrained result with a clear boundary for the virus.
>
> As an example factual point, the lawyers for Interval Research Inc many years ago decided that the licensing for Squeak was perfectly fine for a project aimed at making a commercial system to be sold publicly and widely, indeed across the world. Since those lawyers represented the interests of the (then) 2nd richest person in the world, they had fairly large pockets to protect from vultures.
>
>
> tim
> --
> tim Rowledge; tim at rowledge.org; http://www.rowledge.org/tim
> Strange OpCodes: L: Lie!
>
>
>
>