On 27.09.2014, at 21:04, Eliot Miranda eliot.miranda@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 4:20 AM, Casey Ransberger casey.obrien.r@gmail.com wrote: 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.)
I don't want to spark a debate but would it perhaps be good for Smalltalk licence to begin with "The MIT License (MIT)"? Otherwise it is implicit.
Of course it's implicit, "MIT" is just a shorthand for the actual license, which does not mention MIT. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIT_License
- Bert -