Daniel Narvaez wrote at 14:53 (EDT) on Monday:
I made a list of contributors. I'm not sure what's the best way to
collect permission though. For example, should we email the
contributors keeping a list in cc so that we have a public record?
You don't necessarily need a public record. It's
On 12 June 2013 13:21, Bradley M. Kuhn bk...@sfconservancy.org wrote:
Walter Bender wrote at 09:52 (EDT) on Tuesday:
For the Javascipt/HTML5 work, we are going to use Apache and would
like to fold in the artwork that is currently LGPL. So presumably a
second license is required. Any
On 06/13/2013 01:32 AM, Manuel Quiñones wrote:
2013/6/7 Daniel Narvaez dwnarv...@gmail.com:
I'm still undecided really but since it's important to make a call soon, my
vote goes for Apache, both for sugar-web and for activities we develop.
I'm far from expert on licenses, but given Daniel
On 13 June 2013 11:26, Simon Schampijer si...@schampijer.de wrote:
On 06/13/2013 01:32 AM, Manuel Quiñones wrote:
2013/6/7 Daniel Narvaez dwnarv...@gmail.com:
I'm still undecided really but since it's important to make a call soon,
my
vote goes for Apache, both for sugar-web and for
On 06/13/2013 11:29 AM, Daniel Narvaez wrote:
On 13 June 2013 11:26, Simon Schampijer si...@schampijer.de wrote:
On 06/13/2013 01:32 AM, Manuel Quiñones wrote:
2013/6/7 Daniel Narvaez dwnarv...@gmail.com:
I'm still undecided really but since it's important to make a call soon,
my
vote goes
On 13 June 2013 13:00, Simon Schampijer si...@schampijer.de wrote:
In our case, if we make our libraries licensed under Apache 2
an activity author could use Apache 2 or GPL3 for his activity but not
GPL2, correct?
That's my understanding yeah.
___
2013/6/7 Daniel Narvaez dwnarv...@gmail.com:
I'm still undecided really but since it's important to make a call soon, my
vote goes for Apache, both for sugar-web and for activities we develop.
I'm far from expert on licenses, but given Daniel Narvaez description,
I vote for Apache too.
--
..
On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 9:41 AM, Bradley M. Kuhn
bk...@sfconservancy.org wrote:
On 10 June 2013 18:17, Walter Bender walter.ben...@gmail.com wrote:
I am guessing it is LGPLv2 only. The license is in the COPYING
file,
not in each SVG.
On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 12:05 PM, Bradley M. Kuhn
bk...@sfconservancy.org wrote:
Walter Bender wrote at 07:09 (EDT) on Saturday:
(1) We have some of the core Sugar code still under LGPLv2 (e.g.,
sugar-artwork) which we would like to change to LGPLv3. (2) We would
like to add a second (Apache)
On 10 June 2013 18:17, Walter Bender walter.ben...@gmail.com wrote:
I am guessing it is LGPLv2 only. The license is in the COPYING file,
not in each SVG.
https://github.com/sugarlabs/sugar-artwork/blob/master/COPYING
Is the or later something that goes in the per file headers only (vs the
On 10 June 2013 18:27, Daniel Narvaez dwnarv...@gmail.com wrote:
Does it actually matter here though? We are talking of relicensing to
Apache now, not gpl3.
Oh I see that Walter had brought up the relicensing to gplv3 which is sort
of a separate issue. Sorry for the confusion.
Thanks for clarifying Sebastian. I prefer discussions to polls to
make decisions (and a poll would be not binding anyway) but I'm not against
a poll if people think it's necessary.
On Saturday, 8 June 2013, Sebastian Silva wrote:
Hi,
The poll winner was GPLv3 but the poll was non-binding,
Cool. Maybe since you are talking to the SFC already you could ask how to
get the contributors permission? I wonder if the mailing list should be
cced for example, so that we get a record of it.
On Saturday, 8 June 2013, Walter Bender wrote:
On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 7:58 PM, Daniel Narvaez
On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 4:12 AM, Daniel Narvaez dwnarv...@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks for clarifying Sebastian. I prefer discussions to polls to make
decisions (and a poll would be not binding anyway) but I'm not against a
poll if people think it's necessary.
FWIW, the poll was only taken after a
Let me sum up where I think we are and what questions we have for
Tony/Bradley at SFC:
(1) We have some of the core Sugar code still under LGPLv2 (e.g.,
sugar-artwork) which we would like to change to LGPLv3.
(2) We would like to add a second (Apache) license to this same code.
s there a
On 8 June 2013 13:09, Walter Bender walter.ben...@gmail.com wrote:
Let me sum up where I think we are and what questions we have for
Tony/Bradley at SFC:
(1) We have some of the core Sugar code still under LGPLv2 (e.g.,
sugar-artwork) which we would like to change to LGPLv3.
(2) We would
We really need to make a call here, we start to have a sizeable amount of
code and the first release is near. I tend to think gplv2 is not an option
because of the apache incompatibility. I would go for Apache if we want to
avoid issues with anti-tivoization, otherwise gplv3.
To point out a
I'm still undecided really but since it's important to make a call soon, my
vote goes for Apache, both for sugar-web and for activities we develop.
On Saturday, 8 June 2013, Daniel Narvaez wrote:
We really need to make a call here, we start to have a sizeable amount of
code and the first
Ugh one issue with Apache is that I think we would need to get permission
to relicense the svg icons under apache from all the people that
contributed to them. Do you think that will be possible?
People that contributed but doesn't seem to be involved with the project
anymore.
Eben Eliason
Marco
Well permission to double license really.
On Saturday, 8 June 2013, Daniel Narvaez wrote:
Ugh one issue with Apache is that I think we would need to get permission
to relicense the svg icons under apache from all the people that
contributed to them. Do you think that will be possible?
We already had this discussion two years ago,
is the situation with the javascript activities different to need
start this discussion again?
Gonzalo
On 06/14/2011 05:42 PM, Luke Faraone wrote:
This is a vote to determine the suggested license for future releases
of Sugar. This poll will run
Yes I think it's very different because using GPLv2 would mean we can't use
Apache licensed libraries, which are a big percentage of available js
libraries.
On Saturday, 8 June 2013, Gonzalo Odiard wrote:
We already had this discussion two years ago,
is the situation with the javascript
I'm actually a bit confused about the result of the one year ago
discussion. I thought we decided to stay with gplv2 but the poll winner
seems to be gplv3?
Anyway even on gplv3 I think the situation is pretty different if nothing
else because one of major goals of the web activities work is to
On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 7:58 PM, Daniel Narvaez dwnarv...@gmail.com wrote:
Ugh one issue with Apache is that I think we would need to get permission to
relicense the svg icons under apache from all the people that contributed to
them. Do you think that will be possible?
I am happy to reach out
Hi,
The poll winner was GPLv3 but the poll was non-binding, i.e. the
community can't force contributors to switch licenses and nobody sent a
patch to change license notices.
I and other members of the community think it's important to support
freedom by using copyleft, therefore most of our
Hello,
we need to decide how to license the new javascript libraries. I am mostly
clueless about the topic and I'm honestly scared to start this thread,
please be gentle :)
Following is the rationale I came up with for Agora. I think it probably
applies to the sugar-html libraries too. Feedback
On 3 May 2013 16:15, Daniel Narvaez dwnarv...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello,
we need to decide how to license the new javascript libraries. I am mostly
clueless about the topic and I'm honestly scared to start this thread,
please be gentle :)
Following is the rationale I came up with for Agora. I
27 matches
Mail list logo
