On Dienstag, 26. April 2011, nanon...@mediagala.com wrote:
No, The plan Ceibal don't give the root access neither a developer key
for programmers, with the new OS upgrade.
are those XOs regularily updated or would it be rather easy to possible
create a somewhat lasting jailbreak-application?
There are apparently a few facts from Plan Ceibal's deployment that
are not well known in the community. This surprises me, given that
some of you have been here in Uruguay and I was under the assumption
that you were well aware of these facts. I will refrain to give my
opinion and describe a few
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 8:10 AM, Gabriel Eirea gei...@gmail.com wrote:
There are apparently a few facts from Plan Ceibal's deployment that
are not well known in the community. This surprises me, given that
some of you have been here in Uruguay and I was under the assumption
that you were well
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 8:10 AM, Gabriel Eirea gei...@gmail.com wrote:
Fact 1: in Plan Ceibal the XO 1.0 and XO 1.5-HS don't provide access
to root.
Yes, but as Walter indicates, I understand it is allowed in newer OSs.
In any case I am aware of efforts to make it available.
This means that
/Walter Bender wrote:
Is there evidence of a violation of the GPL?
Are the children of Uruguay are being denied access to Sugar source
or the ability to modify it?
--/
I can Answer both questions:
YES AND YES.
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 1:40 PM, nanon...@mediagala.com wrote:
Walter Bender wrote:
Is there evidence of a violation of the GPL?
Are the children of Uruguay are being denied access to Sugar source or the
ability to modify it?
/Martin Langhoff wrote:
..Yes, but as Walter indicates, I understand it is allowed in newer OSs.
/
No. In URuguay It is not allowed to have root access (or a developer
key) with the new OS Release
/Walter Bender wrote:
I believe that root access is being provided routinely as part of the
current OS upgrade.
--/
No, The plan Ceibal don't give the root access neither a developer key
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 1:54 PM, nanon...@mediagala.com wrote:
Walter Bender wrote:
I believe that root access is being provided routinely as part of the
current OS upgrade.
--
No, The
On 11-04-26 at 02:53pm, nanon...@mediagala.com wrote:
//Martin Langhoff wrote:
..Well, that is not correct. You *can* modify Sugar and run your
modified version without root.
/
Sorry, but _*This is not
2011/4/26 Walter Bender walter.ben...@gmail.com:
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 1:54 PM, nanon...@mediagala.com wrote:
Walter Bender wrote:
I believe that root access is being provided routinely as part of the
current OS upgrade.
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 2:19 PM, Gabriel Eirea gei...@gmail.com wrote:
2011/4/26 Walter Bender walter.ben...@gmail.com:
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 1:54 PM, nanon...@mediagala.com wrote:
Walter Bender wrote:
I believe that root access is being provided routinely as part of the
current OS upgrade.
2011/4/26 Walter Bender walter.ben...@gmail.com:
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 2:19 PM, Gabriel Eirea gei...@gmail.com wrote:
2011/4/26 Walter Bender walter.ben...@gmail.com:
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 1:54 PM, nanon...@mediagala.com wrote:
Walter Bender wrote:
I believe that root access is being
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 2:57 PM, Gabriel Eirea gei...@gmail.com wrote:
2011/4/26 Walter Bender walter.ben...@gmail.com:
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 2:19 PM, Gabriel Eirea gei...@gmail.com wrote:
2011/4/26 Walter Bender walter.ben...@gmail.com:
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 1:54 PM,
On Apr 26, 2011, at 1:51 PM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
How is that a violation of GPL license?
I believe they do have full access to all source code - just is not
allowed to execute it (conveniently) on the hardware it resides on.
Walter is correct that kids in Uruguay should be able to
On Tuesday, April 26, 2011 04:14:29 pm Walter Bender wrote:
I'd love to channel the energy of this debate into writing some code to
expand the utility of View Source to (a) include all of Sugar, not just the
Sugar activities; and (b) make it possible from View Source to make
modifications that
On 11-04-26 at 03:37pm, John Watlington wrote:
On Apr 26, 2011, at 1:51 PM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
How is that a violation of GPL license?
I believe they do have full access to all source code - just is not
allowed to execute it (conveniently) on the hardware it resides on.
Guys, with all due respect, this is reaching a level of silly befuddlement.
Maybe all source IS available somewhere somehow, thus GPL's honor is
safe, and at least technically there is compliance, and saying it
ain't so is untrue.
Which is not worth a vintén, since such so called availability is
Hi Walter,
On 26 Apr 2011, at 20:14, Walter Bender walter.ben...@gmail.com wrote:
I'd love to channel the energy of this debate into writing some code to
expand the
utility of View Source to (a) include all of Sugar, not just the Sugar
activities; and (b) make it possible from View Source
On 11-04-26 at 04:28pm, John Watlington wrote:
On Apr 26, 2011, at 4:16 PM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
On 11-04-26 at 03:37pm, John Watlington wrote:
On Apr 26, 2011, at 1:51 PM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
Tivoization - as I understand it - is when the hardware locks the
code in a way
On Apr 26, 2011, at 6:26 PM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
On 11-04-26 at 04:28pm, John Watlington wrote:
As Martin says, GPL v3 moves from requiring that modifications be
shared, to telling you what you can and cannot do with the code.
Did Martin really acknowledge that XOs - if considered
On Sat, Apr 23, 2011 at 10:34 PM, Sebastian Silva
sebast...@somosazucar.org wrote:
From the olpc-uruguay list in an unrelated thread:
Si utilizamos las claves de desarrollador (que son las que permiten hacer
cualquier cosa en la maquina), pero al momento solo se entregan por
solicitudes
On Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 8:34 AM, Walter Bender walter.ben...@gmail.com wrote:
Likewise, Sugar Labs has an obligation to act on all GPL violations
reported on Sugar Labs copyrighted code. But we cannot act on our own
if we do not hold copyright.
Minor technical note here -- SL has a right, but
23 matches
Mail list logo
