Re: GPLv3
On Fri, Jul 13, 2007 at 05:36:45AM -0400, Bernardo Innocenti wrote: Greg KH wrote: On Fri, Jul 13, 2007 at 01:37:46AM -0400, Bernardo Innocenti wrote: Are we going to relicense Sugar and all the software specifically written for the OLPC under the GPLv3? What would the benifit be? The FSF rationale for the GPLv3 is given here: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/rms-why-gplv3.html Believe me, I know the FSF rationale quite well :) I was just asking why _you_ think the code should be relicensed. What benefit do you think there is for it? thanks, greg k-h ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: GPLv3
It doesn't make much difference relicensing because most of the codes involved are in GPL v2 or later anyways. So I think the best strategy is to wait and see what comes up. But maybe GPLv3 can help us counter pontential Tivotization (i.e proprietary competing products using OLPC codebase ... depends how far its good) On 7/13/07, Greg KH [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, Jul 13, 2007 at 05:36:45AM -0400, Bernardo Innocenti wrote: Greg KH wrote: On Fri, Jul 13, 2007 at 01:37:46AM -0400, Bernardo Innocenti wrote: Are we going to relicense Sugar and all the software specifically written for the OLPC under the GPLv3? What would the benifit be? The FSF rationale for the GPLv3 is given here: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/rms-why-gplv3.html Believe me, I know the FSF rationale quite well :) I was just asking why _you_ think the code should be relicensed. What benefit do you think there is for it? thanks, greg k-h ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: GPLv3
Can we please temporarily shelve this discussion until after we've shipped this machine? I know some of the decision makers/influencers, myself included, just won't have time to invest in understanding the issues until then. And note that in all aggregated work projects, which OLPC is, it requires essentially unanimity to effect a license change. If someone asked my opinion right now, for example, it would be Duh, I dunno: I need between a day and a week to understand the issues - Jim On Fri, 2007-07-13 at 22:11 +0545, Prasanna Gautam wrote: It doesn't make much difference relicensing because most of the codes involved are in GPL v2 or later anyways. So I think the best strategy is to wait and see what comes up. But maybe GPLv3 can help us counter pontential Tivotization ( i.e proprietary competing products using OLPC codebase ... depends how far its good) On 7/13/07, Greg KH [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, Jul 13, 2007 at 05:36:45AM -0400, Bernardo Innocenti wrote: Greg KH wrote: On Fri, Jul 13, 2007 at 01:37:46AM -0400, Bernardo Innocenti wrote: Are we going to relicense Sugar and all the software specifically written for the OLPC under the GPLv3? What would the benifit be? The FSF rationale for the GPLv3 is given here: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/rms-why-gplv3.html Believe me, I know the FSF rationale quite well :) I was just asking why _you_ think the code should be relicensed. What benefit do you think there is for it? thanks, greg k-h ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel -- Jim Gettys One Laptop Per Child ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: GPLv3
A: No. Q: Should I include quotations after my reply? On Fri, Jul 13, 2007 at 10:11:18PM +0545, Prasanna Gautam wrote: It doesn't make much difference relicensing because most of the codes involved are in GPL v2 or later anyways. So I think the best strategy is to wait and see what comes up. But maybe GPLv3 can help us counter pontential Tivotization (i.e proprietary competing products using OLPC codebase ... depends how far its good) The whole Tivo issue (I hate that name, the FSF took a company that complied and got their explicit blessing and turned around and vilified them) does not matter at all as it only affects the kernel, which is not changing from v2 at this time. thanks, greg k-h ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: GPLv3
On Fri, Jul 13, 2007 at 01:51:08PM -0400, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote: Bernardo Innocenti [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [...] Anyway, I was merely wondering rather than pushing for it. If you ask me, yes, I mildly prefer the v3 over the v2. Isn't there a concern that the on-board security firmware in XO would constitute tivoization essentially of the same sort that GPLv3 aims to block? Which is one reason the Linux kernel developers do not agree with that part of the GPLv3 :) thanks, greg k-h ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: GPLv3
On Fri, Jul 13, 2007 at 01:51:08PM -0400, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote: Bernardo Innocenti [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [...] Anyway, I was merely wondering rather than pushing for it. If you ask me, yes, I mildly prefer the v3 over the v2. Isn't there a concern that the on-board security firmware in XO would constitute tivoization essentially of the same sort that GPLv3 aims to block? What security feature specifically? My understanding of GPL3 is that the end-user has should have the same ability to replace the software running on the device as the manufacturer has. With respect to OLPC, this requirement would be fulfilled by giving out developer keys upon request. -- Make April 15 just another day, visit http://fairtax.org ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: GPLv3
GPL3 is an interesting consideration for a later date. Right now there's no point with wasting time to consider since there is _no_ advantage to the OLPC project at the moment. There may be in the future. Also, like a few people already said, without the kernel as GPL3, it will only make it a license nightmare for firmware hacking. Me? I would rather see Open Media formats as the standard for everything on the XO laptop and make the applications that deal with them work smoothly for the children and teachers. ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: GPLv3
On Jul 13, 2007, at 1:51 PM, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote: Isn't there a concern that the on-board security firmware in XO would constitute tivoization essentially of the same sort that GPLv3 aims to block? No. I have been working with the FSF to make sure Bitfrost is not incompatible with the GPLv3. -- Ivan Krstić [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://radian.org ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: GPLv3
Greg KH wrote: I was just asking why _you_ think the code should be relicensed. As I said, I don't have a strong opinion on this. And I didn't write any of that code, so I don't feel like I should actively pursue it. What benefit do you think there is for it? I 99% agree with the benefits explained by the FSF, including the anti-DRM clause and the patent protection. Actually, I'd be even stricter and use the AGPLv3 when it makes sense to do so. On the other hand, do you think there are compelling reasons not to do it? -- // Bernardo Innocenti \X/ http://www.codewiz.org/ ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
