Let me investigate further, because the response to my query was as I quoted below. Clearly there is a miscommunication somewhere within the Ceilbal organization.
-walter On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 12:57 PM, Andrés Ambrois<andresambr...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Monday 24 August 2009 10:11:54 am Walter Bender wrote: >> On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 3:48 AM, John Gilmore<g...@toad.com> wrote: >> > Re: [Sugar-devel] RFH - Journal corruption reports fom 8.2.1 users in Uy >> > >> >> Remember that Ceibal XOs have root access locked-down. And I recently >> >> found out that since the key-delegation stuff was implemented, we can't >> >> request developer keys. Not from OLPC at least, and LATU is not >> >> providing that service that I know... >> > >> > Could someone please clarify this? >> >> According to Ceilbal (24-08-09): >> >> "We have delivered developer keys in the past, and we will deliver them to >> the owner of the machine upon request." >> >> Therefore, I do not think that there is a violation of the GPL. > > I wrote to Ceibal asking for information and this is what they replied: > > "Hola Andrés, > Debido al sistema de seguridad incorporado en la XO, el Plan Ceibal no brinda > la clave de desarrollador. Esto se debe, a que una persona con acceso a la > clave podría desactivar la seguridad de la máquina. > Cualquier otra consulta, no dudes en volver a comunicarte." > > Translation: > > Hello Andrés, > > Because of the security system built into the XO, Plan Ceibal doesn't provide > developer keys. This is because a person with access to the key could > deactivate the security of the machine. > Don't hesitate in contacting us for any other questions. > >> -walter >> >> > It sounds like Project Ceibal is explicitly violating the GNU General >> > Public License on much or all of the software that it ships: >> > >> > * It provides binaries without source code, and without a written >> > offer of source code. >> > >> > * It provides binaries in a physical form (laptop) which is >> > protected against modification by the end-user, so that those >> > users cannot replace the GPLv3-licensed software on the laptop >> > with later versions. More than 20 packages shipped are GPLv3 >> > licensed, as of 12 months ago, including the Coreutils (most >> > shell commands), tar and cpio (used for software updates), and >> > gettext (internationalization). GPLv3 requires that the relevant >> > passwords or keys must be supplied to the end user -- including >> > both the "developer key" and the root password. >> > >> > * Some programs are modified, but the modified versions are not >> > marked to distinguish them from the original GPL-licensed >> > programs. >> > >> > There are other less important violations as well (most are documented >> > at bugs.laptop.org; search for "GPL"). >> > >> > I would be happy to learn that the children receiving these laptops >> > have full access to source code, ability to upgrade their laptops >> > at will, and can tell modified from unmodified software. Please let >> > me know what is really happening in the schools of Uruguay. >> > >> > John Gilmore >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Devel mailing list >> > Devel@lists.laptop.org >> > http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel > > -- > -Andrés > -- Walter Bender Sugar Labs http://www.sugarlabs.org _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel