-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, Nov 06, 2008 at 10:54:38PM +1100, Costello, Rob R wrote:
From outside this all looks as though it might suffer from being a
little too pedantic in adhering to definitional terms
It feels as free and open as can be, in terms of what you can
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
educator who is
biased towards what works for kids learning
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:iaep-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jonas Smedegaard
Sent: Thursday, 6 November 2008 10:31 PM
To: iaep@lists.sugarlabs.org
Subject: Re: [IAEP] [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
At Thu, 6 Nov 2008 00:53:11 -0800,
Bert Freudenberg wrote:
On 06.11.2008, at 00:12, David Farning wrote:
Do you know who I should talk to about requesting that
http://www.squeak.org/SqueakLicense/
be update to reflect this information?
Squeak (at squeak.org) and Etoys (at
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, Nov 05, 2008 at 04:38:19PM -0800, Bert Freudenberg 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
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
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
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 12:18 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
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
On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 5:35 PM, 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,
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
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
Thanks Edward,
I see that you have cced Yoshiki and Robin. If they don't catch this
thread, I follow up with them.
thanks
david
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 7:46 PM, Edward Cherlin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 5:35 PM, David Farning [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Thu, Nov 6,
14 matches
Mail list logo
