To me, one of the more compelling arguments for considering GPLv3 is
When the Rules Are Broken: A Smooth Path to Compliance. We have been
engaged of late in a parallel discussion regarding a possible
violation of the Sugar GPLv2. If this were actually to be the case,
the violator will have to go
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 10:09 AM, Walter Bender walter.ben...@gmail.com wrote:
To me, one of the more compelling arguments for considering GPLv3 is
When the Rules Are Broken: A Smooth Path to Compliance.
Interesting! I hadn't thought it'd be so awkward, but if one is to be
100% formal, you need
in a purely hypothetical scenario (TM), what if the possible violator
doesn't care? Or because of the complexity of the matter, that no
prosecution is ever likely - especially in his own country, etc?
On 04/26/2011 09:09 AM, Walter Bender wrote:
To me, one of the more compelling arguments
On Sat, Apr 23, 2011 at 7:39 AM, Sean DALY sdaly...@gmail.com wrote:
http://fsfe.org/projects/gplv3/europe-gplv3-conference.en.html
http://fsfe.org/projects/gplv3/barcelona-rms-transcript.en.html
see question 6b from this QA from the 3rd International GPLv3
Conference (Barcelona, June 22-23,
On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 12:17 AM, Bernie Innocenti ber...@sugarlabs.org wrote:
By updating to the GPLv3, we make a clear political statement that
commercial usage is ok, but our software must always remain free for
users to use, study, share *and* modify.
1) I'm not interested in using Sugar
technical discussion snipped
Since this is the core point of disagreement within the community, the act
of
accepting or rejecting the GPLv3 assumes for us the deeper meaning of
refusing or endorsing TiVo-ization and DRM in conjunction with Sugar.
'Premature optimization is the root of all
On Mon, 2011-04-25 at 02:00 -0400, David Farning wrote:
'Premature optimization is the root of all evil' -- Donald Knuth
The question is: Of the tasks Sugar Labs can do to improve the educational
valued of Sugar and collaboration within the ecosystem is tweaking the
license among the
On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 7:14 AM, Bernie Innocenti ber...@sugarlabs.orgwrote:
[cc += christoph]
On Fri, 2011-04-22 at 21:25 -0400, Paul Fox wrote:
i think i've missed the point of all this. bernie's original mail
points to the FSF rationale for GPL3 as the reason for moving sugar to
On 11-04-25 at 02:14pm, Christoph Derndorfer wrote:
Secondly you wrote Before proceeding to a vote, we'd like to request
feedback from the community. In particular, we'd like to know how this
change might affect you as a Sugar end-user, distributor, contributor
or maintainer. It can be
On Sat, 2011-04-23 at 03:38 -0400, Martin Langhoff wrote:
That is the position of the FSF. However, a very wide community of
practice has adopted the GPL for its share and share alike
mechanics.
In that sense, I stand squarely on the same position as Linus and
other kernel hackers. I have
Hi Bernie,
thanks for the thoughtful response. The use by employees area is
something I need to study further, as I suspect is more complex than
what you're describing.
On the tivoization part...
On Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 2:50 AM, Bernie Innocenti ber...@sugarlabs.org wrote:
On Sat, 2011-04-23
On Sun, 2011-04-24 at 07:53 -0400, Martin Langhoff wrote:
Wait a moment: neither the GPLv2 nor the GPLv3 has ever put any
limitation on the way you can *use* the software. One could use GPLv3
software to murder people or to implement DRM.
Except that antitivoization clauses provide for
[cc += christoph]
On Fri, 2011-04-22 at 21:25 -0400, Paul Fox wrote:
i think i've missed the point of all this. bernie's original mail
points to the FSF rationale for GPL3 as the reason for moving sugar to
GPL3, but somehow i think there must be more to it. i.e., what
exactly are the
On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 6:14 PM, Bernie Innocenti ber...@sugarlabs.org wrote:
I sure wish that GPLv3 was limited to those bugfixes, and the
anti-tivo wording was segregatd to a new license; a bit like some
clauses were split off to the Affero-GPL.
The GPL always has been about protecting the
On Sat, Apr 23, 2011 at 3:38 AM, Martin Langhoff
martin.langh...@gmail.com wrote:
Murder? You bet! And this isn't hard to get over.
Easy. Oops. Not easy to get over.
m
--
martin.langh...@gmail.com
mar...@laptop.org -- Software Architect - OLPC
- ask interesting questions
- don't get
http://fsfe.org/projects/gplv3/europe-gplv3-conference.en.html
http://fsfe.org/projects/gplv3/barcelona-rms-transcript.en.html
see question 6b from this QA from the 3rd International GPLv3
Conference (Barcelona, June 22-23, 2006):
**
Q6b: Second question, when people start to update
On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 6:18 PM, Bernie Innocenti ber...@sugarlabs.org wrote:
The oversight board is considering a motion to upgrade the license of
Sugar from GPLv2 or later to GPLv3 or later. Before proceeding to a
vote, we'd like to request feedback from the community.
Interesting. (Bad
On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 8:00 PM, Bernie Innocenti ber...@sugarlabs.org wrote:
Authors can express their intentions through a license. If you didn't
want your code to be redistributed under a later versions of the GPL,
then why didn't you distribute as GPLv2-only?
On a personal note here...
On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 10:50 AM, Martin Langhoff
martin.langh...@gmail.com wrote:
- What's the upside?
- At what point do we say hey, this has scant upside, and negative
controversy around it, let's spend our time in productive things
instead?
This is the crux of my objection as well. I
On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 1:00 AM, Bernie Innocenti ber...@sugarlabs.org wrote:
On Thu, 2011-04-21 at 18:47 -0400, C. Scott Ananian wrote:
On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 6:18 PM, Bernie Innocenti ber...@sugarlabs.org
wrote:
Q: Do we need to ask the permission of all copyright holders?
A: No, we'll
On Fri, 2011-04-22 at 16:45 +0100, Peter Robinson wrote:
We're not retroactively re-licensing existing code.
Really? By moving to GPLv3 your removing the ability to use GPLv2
which is by definition a re-license of the code.
Not really, this is a common misconception: redistributing code
On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 12:33 PM, Bernie Innocenti ber...@sugarlabs.org wrote:
On Fri, 2011-04-22 at 16:45 +0100, Peter Robinson wrote:
We're not retroactively re-licensing existing code.
Really? By moving to GPLv3 your removing the ability to use GPLv2
which is by definition a re-license
On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 12:54 PM, C. Scott Ananian csc...@laptop.org wrote:
Yes, you seem to be confused Bernie. You can redistribute under a
license however you like, usually without explicitly stating it. But
if you alter the source files or replace COPYING, you are *changing
the license*.
On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 7:05 PM, Martin Langhoff
martin.langh...@gmail.comwrote:
On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 12:54 PM, C. Scott Ananian csc...@laptop.org
wrote:
Yes, you seem to be confused Bernie. You can redistribute under a
license however you like, usually without explicitly stating it.
Disclaimer: given where I work now, advocating in favor of the GPL will
probably makes me look partisan, but long-time friends like you should
known that these have been my personal opinions for a long time.
On Fri, 2011-04-22 at 10:50 -0400, Martin Langhoff wrote:
On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 8:00
Hi Bernie,
On Fri, Apr 22 2011, Bernie Innocenti wrote:
You've expressed some valid concerns and I believe I've responded
satisfactorily to all of them. If not, I'm glad to hear a
counter-argument from you.
I think you've repeatedly ignored Scott's claim that you can't modify
COPYING or the
Hi,
On Fri, Apr 22 2011, Chris Ball wrote:
I think you've repeatedly ignored Scott's claim that you can't modify
COPYING or the source files because that would be *changing* the
license, rather than taking advantage of GPLv3 redistribution rights.
Can you ask Brett or someone at the FSF what
Even though I haven't spoken with Bernie about his rationale for
proposing the upgrade of the license I would like to explain why I
strongly feel that as a member of the SLOBs board and as a
representative of the community I have the duty to back the proposal.
You see GPL is not only a
28 matches
Mail list logo
