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?
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 ...
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
