Re: Is Project Ceibal violating the GNU General Public License?
Let me investigate further, because the response to my query was as I quoted below. Clearly there is a miscommunication somewhere within the Ceilbal organization. -walter On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 12:57 PM, Andrés Ambroisandresambr...@gmail.com wrote: On Monday 24 August 2009 10:11:54 am Walter Bender wrote: On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 3:48 AM, John Gilmoreg...@toad.com wrote: Re: [Sugar-devel] RFH - Journal corruption reports fom 8.2.1 users in Uy Remember that Ceibal XOs have root access locked-down. And I recently found out that since the key-delegation stuff was implemented, we can't request developer keys. Not from OLPC at least, and LATU is not providing that service that I know... Could someone please clarify this? According to Ceilbal (24-08-09): We have delivered developer keys in the past, and we will deliver them to the owner of the machine upon request. Therefore, I do not think that there is a violation of the GPL. I wrote to Ceibal asking for information and this is what they replied: Hola Andrés, Debido al sistema de seguridad incorporado en la XO, el Plan Ceibal no brinda la clave de desarrollador. Esto se debe, a que una persona con acceso a la clave podría desactivar la seguridad de la máquina. Cualquier otra consulta, no dudes en volver a comunicarte. Translation: Hello Andrés, Because of the security system built into the XO, Plan Ceibal doesn't provide developer keys. This is because a person with access to the key could deactivate the security of the machine. Don't hesitate in contacting us for any other questions. -walter It sounds like Project Ceibal is explicitly violating the GNU General Public License on much or all of the software that it ships: * It provides binaries without source code, and without a written offer of source code. * It provides binaries in a physical form (laptop) which is protected against modification by the end-user, so that those users cannot replace the GPLv3-licensed software on the laptop with later versions. More than 20 packages shipped are GPLv3 licensed, as of 12 months ago, including the Coreutils (most shell commands), tar and cpio (used for software updates), and gettext (internationalization). GPLv3 requires that the relevant passwords or keys must be supplied to the end user -- including both the developer key and the root password. * Some programs are modified, but the modified versions are not marked to distinguish them from the original GPL-licensed programs. There are other less important violations as well (most are documented at bugs.laptop.org; search for GPL). I would be happy to learn that the children receiving these laptops have full access to source code, ability to upgrade their laptops at will, and can tell modified from unmodified software. Please let me know what is really happening in the schools of Uruguay. John Gilmore ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel -- -Andrés -- Walter Bender Sugar Labs http://www.sugarlabs.org ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: Is Project Ceibal violating the GNU General Public License?
On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 3:48 AM, John Gilmoreg...@toad.com wrote: Re: [Sugar-devel] RFH - Journal corruption reports fom 8.2.1 users in Uy Remember that Ceibal XOs have root access locked-down. And I recently found out that since the key-delegation stuff was implemented, we can't request developer keys. Not from OLPC at least, and LATU is not providing that service that I know... Could someone please clarify this? According to Ceilbal (24-08-09): We have delivered developer keys in the past, and we will deliver them to the owner of the machine upon request. Therefore, I do not think that there is a violation of the GPL. -walter It sounds like Project Ceibal is explicitly violating the GNU General Public License on much or all of the software that it ships: * It provides binaries without source code, and without a written offer of source code. * It provides binaries in a physical form (laptop) which is protected against modification by the end-user, so that those users cannot replace the GPLv3-licensed software on the laptop with later versions. More than 20 packages shipped are GPLv3 licensed, as of 12 months ago, including the Coreutils (most shell commands), tar and cpio (used for software updates), and gettext (internationalization). GPLv3 requires that the relevant passwords or keys must be supplied to the end user -- including both the developer key and the root password. * Some programs are modified, but the modified versions are not marked to distinguish them from the original GPL-licensed programs. There are other less important violations as well (most are documented at bugs.laptop.org; search for GPL). I would be happy to learn that the children receiving these laptops have full access to source code, ability to upgrade their laptops at will, and can tell modified from unmodified software. Please let me know what is really happening in the schools of Uruguay. John Gilmore ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel -- Walter Bender Sugar Labs http://www.sugarlabs.org ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: Is Project Ceibal violating the GNU General Public License?
On Monday 24 August 2009 10:11:54 am Walter Bender wrote: On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 3:48 AM, John Gilmoreg...@toad.com wrote: Re: [Sugar-devel] RFH - Journal corruption reports fom 8.2.1 users in Uy Remember that Ceibal XOs have root access locked-down. And I recently found out that since the key-delegation stuff was implemented, we can't request developer keys. Not from OLPC at least, and LATU is not providing that service that I know... Could someone please clarify this? According to Ceilbal (24-08-09): We have delivered developer keys in the past, and we will deliver them to the owner of the machine upon request. Therefore, I do not think that there is a violation of the GPL. I wrote to Ceibal asking for information and this is what they replied: Hola Andrés, Debido al sistema de seguridad incorporado en la XO, el Plan Ceibal no brinda la clave de desarrollador. Esto se debe, a que una persona con acceso a la clave podría desactivar la seguridad de la máquina. Cualquier otra consulta, no dudes en volver a comunicarte. Translation: Hello Andrés, Because of the security system built into the XO, Plan Ceibal doesn't provide developer keys. This is because a person with access to the key could deactivate the security of the machine. Don't hesitate in contacting us for any other questions. -walter It sounds like Project Ceibal is explicitly violating the GNU General Public License on much or all of the software that it ships: * It provides binaries without source code, and without a written offer of source code. * It provides binaries in a physical form (laptop) which is protected against modification by the end-user, so that those users cannot replace the GPLv3-licensed software on the laptop with later versions. More than 20 packages shipped are GPLv3 licensed, as of 12 months ago, including the Coreutils (most shell commands), tar and cpio (used for software updates), and gettext (internationalization). GPLv3 requires that the relevant passwords or keys must be supplied to the end user -- including both the developer key and the root password. * Some programs are modified, but the modified versions are not marked to distinguish them from the original GPL-licensed programs. There are other less important violations as well (most are documented at bugs.laptop.org; search for GPL). I would be happy to learn that the children receiving these laptops have full access to source code, ability to upgrade their laptops at will, and can tell modified from unmodified software. Please let me know what is really happening in the schools of Uruguay. John Gilmore ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel -- -Andrés ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
