Re: [sugar] Sugar on Edubuntu
Yoshiki. I'll forward this information to the Ubuntu Squeak maintainer. Do you know who I should talk to about requesting that http://www.squeak.org/SqueakLicense/ be update to reflect this information? thanks david On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 1:55 AM, Yoshiki Ohshima [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello, 1. The statement Walter quoted (As of this summer, all of the code contained in our Squeak Etoys version 4.0 is covered by either the Apache 2.0 or MIT Licenses.) is correct. Edward quoted the email I sent around while ago. We have a license-clean Etoys V. 4.0 developers image. The problem here is that edubuntu and its packages are in Ubuntu Main, and for sugar to be in there, there must be no non-free software in it, and squeak is not totally free. Apple fonts not being modifiable, iirc. Its pretty much the same policy as debian. Scratch was recently rejected from MOTU for the similar reasons. 2. Apple fonts has been removed from any newer Squeak-variations, including Etoys. So, Apple fonts is not an issue. Is the issue where squeak was originally licensed under a non-free Apple license[1] and the squeak foundations can't locate all of the original contributors[2] to convert it to an mit license? http://www.squeak.org/SqueakLicense/ http://netjam.org/squeak/contributors/missingSignatories 3. Just looking at missingSignatories without looking at actual code is misleading because their code are alreay removed or rewritten. 4. We haven't made an RPM or any package from the dev image yet. Making a RPM doesn't take long, but we just haven't gotten around testing it enough... Of course, one way to test it is to create an RPM and have people try. If you say we should, we can certainly do so from the current v 4.0. 5. So, if the license was the problem, there shouldn't be any problem for including the latest version of Etoys into such distros. If the development model is the problem, well, solutions are potentially implementable, but would take some time to carray through. -- Yoshiki ___ Sugar mailing list Sugar@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/sugar ___ Sugar mailing list Sugar@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/sugar
Re: [sugar] Sugar on Edubuntu
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 12:36, Morgan Collett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 02:38, Bert Freudenberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 05.11.2008, at 13:55, David Farning wrote: .One sticking point was the availability of squeak on Ubuntu. If I remember this issue was beaten to death before I got involved with SL. I only remember discussion of getting it into Debian, not Ubuntu. Basically, even though the license issues are finally resolved, they did not want to have it in because they do not agree with its current development model: http://lists.laptop.org/pipermail/devel/2008-June/015479.html Ubuntu syncs from Debian during every development cycle, so if it's in debian we get it in Ubuntu with no extra work. The mail you reference doesn't give all the details but I think I remember the issue - building from source: Debian considers packages that can't build from source to be non-free. Thanks for the reminder of this issue - I'll take it up on the edubuntu list. Actually, on digging I found we have etoys and squeak-vm in Ubuntu, in multiverse - which is the non-free repository: https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/squeak-vm, https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/etoys In this state it's not distributable on official Ubuntu CDs, such as the Edubuntu CD, but it's easily installable. We'll work on fixing the non-free status in the next Ubuntu release cycle, if possible... Regards Morgan ___ Sugar mailing list Sugar@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/sugar
Re: [sugar] Sugar on Edubuntu
On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 23:55, David Farning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: One sticking point was the availability of squeak on Ubuntu. If I remember this issue was beaten to death before I got involved with SL. If anyone has pointers to the relevant threads, I would appreciate them. My perspective is that Etoys is an important part of Sugar, and we'd like to have it in Ubuntu as soon as possible, but it doesn't hold back the rest of Sugar. The Edubuntu community is interested in Squeak already, for other reasons, so there are a good number of people who want it included. If possible, we'd like to see it in Debian, so we can maintain it through the usual sync with Debian. Regards Morgan ___ Sugar mailing list Sugar@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/sugar
Re: [sugar] Sugar on Edubuntu
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 02:38, Bert Freudenberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 05.11.2008, at 13:55, David Farning wrote: .One sticking point was the availability of squeak on Ubuntu. If I remember this issue was beaten to death before I got involved with SL. I only remember discussion of getting it into Debian, not Ubuntu. Basically, even though the license issues are finally resolved, they did not want to have it in because they do not agree with its current development model: http://lists.laptop.org/pipermail/devel/2008-June/015479.html Ubuntu syncs from Debian during every development cycle, so if it's in debian we get it in Ubuntu with no extra work. The mail you reference doesn't give all the details but I think I remember the issue - building from source: Debian considers packages that can't build from source to be non-free. Thanks for the reminder of this issue - I'll take it up on the edubuntu list. Regards Morgan ___ Sugar mailing list Sugar@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/sugar
[sugar] Sugar on Edubuntu
Edubuntu held a IRC planning meeting that was well attended by Sugar. As David VA pointed out in an earlier thread, Edubuntu has had a complicated history. (who hasn't) Hopefully, we can use some Sugar/Ubuntu SugarTeam/LTSP/Edubuntu synergy to help reignite interest in Edubuntu. Much of the conversation focused on how Edubuntu and the Ubuntu SugarTeam could work together more closely. Sugar, Ubuntu SugarTeam and Edubuntu were in agreement on all key points. One sticking point was the availability of squeak on Ubuntu. If I remember this issue was beaten to death before I got involved with SL. If anyone has pointers to the relevant threads, I would appreciate them. Also, a representative from RevolutionLinux[1], an open source in schools deployer, actively participated in the conversation:) thanks david 1 www.revolutionlinux.com ___ Sugar mailing list Sugar@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/sugar
Re: [sugar] Sugar on Edubuntu
On 05.11.2008, at 13:55, David Farning wrote: .One sticking point was the availability of squeak on Ubuntu. If I remember this issue was beaten to death before I got involved with SL. I only remember discussion of getting it into Debian, not Ubuntu. Basically, even though the license issues are finally resolved, they did not want to have it in because they do not agree with its current development model: http://lists.laptop.org/pipermail/devel/2008-June/015479.html - Bert - ___ Sugar mailing list Sugar@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/sugar
Re: [sugar] Sugar on Edubuntu
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 7:18 PM, David Van Assche [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: The problem here is that edubuntu and its packages are in Ubuntu Main, and for sugar to be in there, there must be no non-free software in it, and squeak is not totally free. Apple fonts not being modifiable, iirc. Its pretty much the same policy as debian. Scratch was recently rejected from MOTU for the similar reasons. David Van Assche Is the issue where squeak was originally licensed under a non-free Apple license[1] and the squeak foundations can't locate all of the original contributors[2] to convert it to an mit license? 1. http://www.squeak.org/SqueakLicense/ 2. http://netjam.org/squeak/contributors/missingSignatories david On 11/6/08, Bert Freudenberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 05.11.2008, at 13:55, David Farning wrote: .One sticking point was the availability of squeak on Ubuntu. If I remember this issue was beaten to death before I got involved with SL. I only remember discussion of getting it into Debian, not Ubuntu. Basically, even though the license issues are finally resolved, they did not want to have it in because they do not agree with its current development model: http://lists.laptop.org/pipermail/devel/2008-June/015479.html - Bert - ___ Sugar mailing list Sugar@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/sugar ___ Sugar mailing list Sugar@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/sugar ___ Sugar mailing list Sugar@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/sugar
Re: [sugar] Sugar on Edubuntu
David: Yeah thats the one. Vik: The edubuntu community is seeing how it can move the edubuntu portion into universe, though that then limits support, as only main and restricted get full support from ubuntu developers. It is currently unsure what will go where, but edubuntu in universe means more developers and potentially more apps. Here is the explanation of licensing from the ubuntu pages: main component The main distribution component contains applications that are free software, can freely be redistributed and are fully supported by the Ubuntu team. This includes the most popular and most reliable open source applications available, much of which is installed by default when you install Ubuntu. Software in main includes a hand-selected list of applications that the Ubuntu developers, community, and users feel are important and that the Ubuntu security and distribution team are willing to support. When you install software from the main component you are assured that the software will come with security updates and technical support. We believe that the software in main includes everything most people will need for a fully functional desktop or internet server running only open source software. The licences for software applications in main must be free, but main may also may contain binary firmware and selected fonts that cannot be modified without permission from their authors. In all cases redistribution is unencumbered. universe component The universe component is a snapshot of the free, open source, and Linux world. In universe you can find almost every piece of open source software, and software available under a variety of less open licences, all built automatically from a variety of public sources. All of this software is compiled against the libraries and using the tools that form part of main, so it should install and work well with the software in main, but it comes with no guarantee of security fixes and support. The universe component includes thousands of pieces of software. Through universe, users are able to have the diversity and flexibility offered by the vast open source world on top of a stable Ubuntu core. Canonical does not provide a guarantee of regular security updates for software found in universe but will provide these where they are made available by the community. Users should understand the risk inherent in using packages from the universe component. Popular or well supported pieces of software will move from universe into main if they are backed by maintainers willing to meet the standards set for main by the Ubuntu team. Regards, David On 11/6/08, David Farning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 7:18 PM, David Van Assche [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The problem here is that edubuntu and its packages are in Ubuntu Main, and for sugar to be in there, there must be no non-free software in it, and squeak is not totally free. Apple fonts not being modifiable, iirc. Its pretty much the same policy as debian. Scratch was recently rejected from MOTU for the similar reasons. David Van Assche Is the issue where squeak was originally licensed under a non-free Apple license[1] and the squeak foundations can't locate all of the original contributors[2] to convert it to an mit license? 1. http://www.squeak.org/SqueakLicense/ 2. http://netjam.org/squeak/contributors/missingSignatories david On 11/6/08, Bert Freudenberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 05.11.2008, at 13:55, David Farning wrote: .One sticking point was the availability of squeak on Ubuntu. If I remember this issue was beaten to death before I got involved with SL. I only remember discussion of getting it into Debian, not Ubuntu. Basically, even though the license issues are finally resolved, they did not want to have it in because they do not agree with its current development model: http://lists.laptop.org/pipermail/devel/2008-June/015479.html - Bert - ___ Sugar mailing list Sugar@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/sugar ___ Sugar mailing list Sugar@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/sugar ___ Sugar mailing list Sugar@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/sugar
Re: [sugar] Sugar on Edubuntu
On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 20:18, David Van Assche [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The problem here is that edubuntu and its packages are in Ubuntu Main, and for sugar to be in there, there must be no non-free software in it, and squeak is not totally free. Apple fonts not being modifiable, iirc. Its pretty much the same policy as debian. This does not seem to be the case, according to http://www.ubuntu.com/community/ubuntustory/components : The licences for software applications in main must be free, but main may also may contain binary firmware and selected fonts that cannot be modified without permission from their authors. In all cases redistribution is unencumbered. -lf ___ Sugar mailing list Sugar@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/sugar
Re: [sugar] Sugar on Edubuntu
I wasnt aware squeak was a firmware binary or a font... No but seriously, that passage talks about just fonts.. not software that uses wrongly licensed components, which is what squeak is David On 11/6/08, Luke Faraone [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 20:18, David Van Assche [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The problem here is that edubuntu and its packages are in Ubuntu Main, and for sugar to be in there, there must be no non-free software in it, and squeak is not totally free. Apple fonts not being modifiable, iirc. Its pretty much the same policy as debian. This does not seem to be the case, according to http://www.ubuntu.com/community/ubuntustory/components : The licences for software applications in main must be free, but main may also may contain binary firmware and selected fonts that cannot be modified without permission from their authors. In all cases redistribution is unencumbered. -lf ___ Sugar mailing list Sugar@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/sugar
Re: [sugar] Sugar on Edubuntu
Hello, 1. The statement Walter quoted (As of this summer, all of the code contained in our Squeak Etoys version 4.0 is covered by either the Apache 2.0 or MIT Licenses.) is correct. Edward quoted the email I sent around while ago. We have a license-clean Etoys V. 4.0 developers image. The problem here is that edubuntu and its packages are in Ubuntu Main, and for sugar to be in there, there must be no non-free software in it, and squeak is not totally free. Apple fonts not being modifiable, iirc. Its pretty much the same policy as debian. Scratch was recently rejected from MOTU for the similar reasons. 2. Apple fonts has been removed from any newer Squeak-variations, including Etoys. So, Apple fonts is not an issue. Is the issue where squeak was originally licensed under a non-free Apple license[1] and the squeak foundations can't locate all of the original contributors[2] to convert it to an mit license? http://www.squeak.org/SqueakLicense/ http://netjam.org/squeak/contributors/missingSignatories 3. Just looking at missingSignatories without looking at actual code is misleading because their code are alreay removed or rewritten. 4. We haven't made an RPM or any package from the dev image yet. Making a RPM doesn't take long, but we just haven't gotten around testing it enough... Of course, one way to test it is to create an RPM and have people try. If you say we should, we can certainly do so from the current v 4.0. 5. So, if the license was the problem, there shouldn't be any problem for including the latest version of Etoys into such distros. If the development model is the problem, well, solutions are potentially implementable, but would take some time to carray through. -- Yoshiki ___ Sugar mailing list Sugar@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/sugar
