[cc += christoph] On Fri, 2011-04-22 at 21:25 -0400, Paul Fox wrote: > i think i've missed the point of all this. bernie's original mail > points to the FSF rationale for GPL3 as the reason for moving sugar to > GPL3, but somehow i think there must be more to it. i.e., what > exactly are the arguments in favor of _sugar_ changing licenses? > > i have no stake in this decision at all -- i'm just wondering about > the "why".
Sorry Paul, I had missed your reply to the list. You and Christoph asked similar questions and I'd like to answer both of them comprehensively, but tonight I'm too tired to write more than just a short summary :-) To me, the reasons already given in the GPLv3 quick guide (*) are relevant to most free software, and therefore also to Sugar. Even if some of the reasons for updating the license are of legal nature and we're not lawyers, it doesn't mean there's no tangible advantage for the project. A license is a legal document, after all, so if we're looking for technical advantages, we're simply looking in the wrong place. Christoph also asked what strategic advantages the GPLv3 would bring in the surrounding ecosystem: Sugar is a member project of the Software Freedom Conservancy, and has a strong bound with the Free Software Foundation in the form of donated hosting and infrastructure for the past 3 years. In this regard, it makes sense for us to be using the latest published version of their license. If we managed to make Sugar endorsed by the GNU project, or even make it to the high-priority free software list, this could result in extra visibility and funding for development. Currently, Sugar official releases don't even make it to the LWN announcements page, unlike tiny and obscure GNU packages such as m4 and gettext. The main point being debated in this thread is the so-called anti-TiVo clause. For people like me, it's a necessary fix to make the GPL continue to work as intended in this era of locked-down devices and laws prohibiting modifications such as the DMCA. For Martin (and Scott?) the anti-TiVo clause is overly restrictive and the manifestation of a radical political agenda. Since this is the core point of disagreement within the community, the act of accepting or rejecting the GPLv3 assumes for us the deeper meaning of refusing or endorsing TiVo-ization and DRM in conjunction with Sugar. (*) http://www.gnu.org/licenses/quick-guide-gplv3.html -- Bernie Innocenti Sugar Labs Infrastructure Team http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Infrastructure_Team _______________________________________________ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) [email protected] http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
