Re: [Sugar-devel] ASLO shut down target date? (was: licensing question)

When 'deprecated', meaning a better alternative is available. This could be ASLOv3 when it is completed, fully tested and made available In other words, not 'real soon now'. Tony On Thursday, 24 May, 2018 11:26 AM, Dave Crossland wrote: On Wed, May 23, 2018, 8:54 PM James Cameron

Re: [Sugar-devel] licensing question

James Cameron's devotion to alternate facts is what is amusing (actually sad). The only way Sugar users can access activities not already installed is by ASLO (unless we have some really carefully hidden source). Tony On Thursday, 24 May, 2018 08:54 AM, James Cameron wrote: Tony's insistence

Re: [Sugar-devel] licensing question

Hi Walter, yes, there are two questions, the one regarding TurtleBlocks JS and the other about whether porting from one language to another is to be considered as a "derivative work". The issue of artworks having been copied verbatim is different from the last one: for what I know, the upstream s

Re: [Sugar-devel] ASLO shut down target date? (was: licensing question)

On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 11:29:53PM -0400, Walter Bender wrote: > > On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 11:26 PM Dave Crossland <[1]d...@lab6.com> wrote: > > On Wed, May 23, 2018, 8:54 PM James Cameron <[2]qu...@laptop.org> wrote: > > Tony's insistence on ASLO continues to amuse me.  Most distrib

Re: [Sugar-devel] licensing question

On Wed, May 23, 2018, 11:28 PM James Cameron wrote: > On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 11:23:24PM -0400, Dave Crossland wrote: > > > > On Wed, May 23, 2018, 8:54 PM James Cameron <[1]qu...@laptop.org> wrote: > > > > If the source license is GPLv3+, then anyone can relicense as Apache > > 2.0. > >

Re: [Sugar-devel] ASLO shut down target date? (was: licensing question)

On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 11:26 PM Dave Crossland wrote: > > > On Wed, May 23, 2018, 8:54 PM James Cameron wrote: > >> >> >> >> Tony's insistence on ASLO continues to amuse me. Most distribution of >> activities now happens through bundles, tarballs, and GitHub. ASLO is >> rarely used by distrib

Re: [Sugar-devel] licensing question

On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 11:23:24PM -0400, Dave Crossland wrote: > > On Wed, May 23, 2018, 8:54 PM James Cameron <[1]qu...@laptop.org> wrote: > > If the source license is GPLv3+, then anyone can relicense as Apache > 2.0. > > N :) > > This is ABSOLUTELY false.  > > If the source

[Sugar-devel] ASLO shut down target date? (was: licensing question)

On Wed, May 23, 2018, 8:54 PM James Cameron wrote: > > > > Tony's insistence on ASLO continues to amuse me. Most distribution of > activities now happens through bundles, tarballs, and GitHub. ASLO is > rarely used by distributors or indeed useful for anything except > personal searches for bro

Re: [Sugar-devel] licensing question

On Wed, May 23, 2018, 8:54 PM James Cameron wrote: > > If the source license is GPLv3+, then anyone can relicense as Apache > 2.0. > N :) > This is ABSOLUTELY false. If the source license is GPLv3+, then anyone can add new code that combines with the GPLv3(+) code under Apache 2.0, bec

Re: [Sugar-devel] licensing question

Copyright on the source code of these activities is held by their original authors, and not by Sugar Labs. The ASLO process is a distribution of software by Sugar Labs, and the licenses are in the source code bundles. It makes no real difference what was entered into ASLO as metadata, what matter

Re: [Sugar-devel] licensing question

On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 8:03 PM Tony Anderson wrote: > The bulk of the Sugar Activities were contributed through the ASLO > process. This process assumes that the contributor is the copyright-holder. > The contributor was asked to specify a license. Unfortunately that > selection is not displayed

Re: [Sugar-devel] licensing question

The bulk of the Sugar Activities were contributed through the ASLO process. This process assumes that the contributor is the copyright-holder. The contributor was asked to specify a license. Unfortunately that selection is not displayed on ASLO. Therefore, it is likely that the license clause i

Re: [Sugar-devel] licensing question

Thank you! On Wed, May 23, 2018, 7:03 PM Adam Holt wrote: > On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 6:41 PM, Walter Bender > wrote: > >> We are struggling with a licensing question [1] and were hoping that the >> SFC might be able to advise us. Can you please reach out to them in your >> role as liaison? >> >

Re: [Sugar-devel] licensing question

On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 6:41 PM, Walter Bender wrote: > We are struggling with a licensing question [1] and were hoping that the > SFC might be able to advise us. Can you please reach out to them in your > role as liaison? > I've emailed Karen Sandler (SFConservancy) asking how/who we should app

[Sugar-devel] licensing question

We are struggling with a licensing question [1] and were hoping that the SFC might be able to advise us. Can you please reach out to them in your role as liaison? thx -walter [1] https://github.com/llaske/sugarizer/issues/48 -- Walter Bender Sugar Labs http://www.sugarlabs.org