This was in response to Dave Crossland's concern that the Board is
acting in secret. The motion passed with 6 votes in favor and one
On 07/01/2016 11:55 AM, Sam Parkinson wrote:
On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 3:32 PM, Tony Anderson <tony_ander...@usa.net>
This is what I have been able to find regarding the GPLv3 motion.
_At today's Sugar Labs oversight board meeting , we discussed the
motion submitted by Sebastian Silva to finalize the transition from
GPLv2 to GPLv3 for the Sugar core libraries (Sugar Activity
developers are still free to choose whatever Libre license they
prefer for their work.) See . I second the motion and bring it to
you in an email vote._
Didn't the motion pass? I already merged the change of licence into
the sugar repo, as per the approval.
Also, will we migrate sugar-toolkit-gtk3 to LGPLv3+? What about
_BTW I'm worried about the fact that the Sugar-Web part (and so
Sugarizer too) use the Apache 2.0 Licence. _
_I'm not a specialist but what imply a Licence migration ?_
These web people and their non copyleft liscenses. I'm defiantly not
a copyright holder for sugar-web, but aren't they worried about people
stealing their work and rolling it into nonfree software?
_+1 para GPLv3 motion_
__Lic. José Miguel García__
__Montevideo - Uruguay_
Today at 8:04PM (ET) would be the deadline for the GPLv3 motion. (May
13 @ 8:04PM ET)
So this vote was 6 in favor and one abstention.
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)