I'm using Trisquel on a Sugar Toast 4.51 and noticed that the
autoupdater wants me to install Scratch, although its non-free both by
Trisquel's definition and Sugar Activity Library policy. This is
critical in a Free distribution like Trisquel, where we take the effort
to rebrand for instance Firefox because of its non free branding policy.
So i've filed a bug report with Trisquel to keep track of this:
https://trisquel.info/es/issues/3871
This was discussed earlier and I think I remember we agreed to remove
Scratch from ASLO but we haven't done so yet.
Can we take action now and hope for a free scratch someday?
Sebastian
El 05/06/11 22:49, Jecel Assumpcao Jr. escribió:
Chris Ball wrote on Sun, 05 Jun 2011 11:16:46 -0400
On Sun, Jun 05 2011, Bernie Innocenti wrote:
The very short summary is that there are two different licenses for
Scratch: one for the source code, which prohibits calling the resulting
binary Scratch and uploading projects to the website, and one for
binaries, which doesn't allow modification. It's hard to notice the
problem, because they don't mention it even in the license FAQ.
Just a quick addition: the source license *also* prohibits commercial use.
So, even if we accepted the rules about naming and uploading as being just
a ham-fisted attempt to implement trademark law inside a copyright license,
the non-commercial clause would still be a show-stopper. :/
While I totally disagree with what they did, I understand why they did
it:
The name restrictions were a reaction to the Etoys situation, where when
you load a given version of Etoys it is very easy to find projects on
the web that won't load into it (sometimes too new, but mostly too old).
They wanted full control so that anything named Scratch that you ever
download can go to their web site and work with any of the nearly 2
million projects there. My opinion is that this is a hopeless quest
(even more ambitious than the OLPC plan to make the exact same XO for
five years), but the software is theirs to try.
The non commercial thing is simply that they were afraid of closing off
options of making money in the future with stuff like
http://www.picocricket.com/picoboard.html
The idea is that they could always open up in the future, but if they
started open then it would not be possible to restrict stuff later if
needed.
As I said, I don't like any of this and can understand if there is a
decision not to include it as a basic part of Sugar. But many children
around the world have benefited greatly from this software so it would
be important for it to be easy for them to get it.
-- Jecel
_______________________________________________
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
_______________________________________________
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
