Re: [Sugar-devel] GPL non-compliance, was Re: [IAEP] [SLOBS] GPLv3
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 11:15 PM, Yamandu Ploskonka yamap...@gmail.com wrote: On 04/20/2011 08:05 PM, Walter Bender wrote: On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 8:52 PM, Yamandu Ploskonkayamap...@gmail.com wrote: AFAIK (please correct me) Uruguay is not providing code, thus in violation of GNU license, and this situation has not been solved after several years. This is a serious accusation. Can you please provide some backup? Specific to Sugar? If it is serious, why hasn't it been *solved* before? There has not been any accusation prior to yours that Ceibal was violating the GPL in regard to Sugar. 2009: http://lists.laptop.org/pipermail/olpc-sur/2009-August/004247.html 2010: http://www.mail-archive.com/sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org/msg14915.html Walter, I am too dumb to know the full ins and outs of this. I also have been advised that I should not mess with this because (as I understood it) there's some sort of insider arrangement I do not know and clearly I am not supposed to know, but time passes and the matter is not solved. You know this is no new issue, so I find it really out of place (and it hurts a bit) that I am pointed out like the serious accuser, eh? We have been as a community working on the general issue of getting machines 'unlocked' in Uruguay, as as Bernie points out, we have apparently succeeded. Your serious accusation about Sugar was new and was a bit out of the blue. And your proposed remedies a bit extreme. And you presented no new evidence. I don't think you were treated unfairly. You were given thoughtful responses from the community as to why they think you are incorrect in this instance. I am not sure what else you could have expected in the case that you were wrong. BTW, if the accusation were true, who should write that cease-and-desist letter to Ceibal? I had spoken to the FSF about this (and the SFLC) and they both had recommended the path we took: work with Ceibal to remedy the situation. Now, if this is irrelevant to Sugar's GPL, I apologize again, pull down my flag and take my spanking like a man. As far as I know, it is irrelevant to Sugar's GPL. Which is why I asked you to explain to the community why you thought otherwise. IMHO, if we are to learn anything from the current 3 cups of tea thing, it is that it works to all's benefit to sort these things out in the open. Where are we not being open? regards. -walter -- Walter Bender Sugar Labs http://www.sugarlabs.org ___ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
[Sugar-devel] ANNOUNCE: Moving Sugar to GPLv3+
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. In particular, we'd like to know how this change might affect you as a Sugar end-user, distributor, contributor or maintainer. Free Software licensing is a complex topic. To keep the level of the discussion high, please contribute to this thread only after making a small effort to inform yourself. == Questions Answers == Q: what's the benefit of upgrading to the GPLv3? A: The full rationale for the GPLv3 is provided here: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/quick-guide-gplv3.html Q: Do we need to ask the permission of all copyright holders? A: No, we'll take advantage of the or any later version clause in the current license. We're not retroactively re-licensing existing code. Q: How is the actual license change done? A: We need to replace the COPYING file in the source code and update the headers of all source files. This operation can easily be automated. Q: What if the maintainer of a module wants to keep the GPLv2 or later? A: This is is perfectly acceptable, but the combined work comprising GPLv2 and GPLv3 modules would fall under the GPLv3. Q: Are there license compatibility problems with GNOME, Python or other libraries we depend on? A: To the best of our knowledge, all Sugar dependencies are compatible with the GPLv3. Q: When will the change happen? A: We're looking at the 0.94 release cycle. Maintainers of individual activities and non-core projects can update their license at any time, or not at all. Q: What about sugar-toolkit, which is LGPLv2+? A: Following the path of least resistance, every LGPLv2+ module will be upgraded to the LGPLv3+. Q: How will the GPLv3+ affect anti-theft systems? A: As long as end-users can request and receive developer keys, the Bitfrost anti-theft system is compatible with the anti-tivoization clause of the GPLv3. Q: How will the GPLv3+ affect OLPC deployments? A: Sugar will simply add a few more GPLv3 packages to the ones already present in Fedora, so there is no real difference here -- The deployments are *already* using GPLv3 software today. -- Bernie Innocenti Sugar Labs Infrastructure Team http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Infrastructure_Team ___ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] [IAEP] ANNOUNCE: Moving Sugar to GPLv3+
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 take advantage of the or any later version clause in the current license. We're not retroactively re-licensing existing code. This isn't actually true. You can't change the license on my code -- it's still GPLv2 or later. You can make a combined work where the new parts are GPLv3, and you can redistribute it under the terms of the GPLv3 (because of the or later), but you cannot change the license on the existing code unless you are the sole owner. That is why the FSF does copyright assignment. (See discussions on the net, for example: http://lwn.net/Articles/228354/ ) I'm also opposed to this change, for three reasons: a) code of the affected code is mine, and i don't want to do it. b) it seems to have no point, other than a philosophic one. I'm opposed to change-for-change sake in this matter; it can only make things worse, and I see nothing which is being made *better*. (Ironically, moving to GPLv3 is taking freedoms *away* from users of Sugar). --scott -- ( http://cscott.net ) ___ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] [IAEP] ANNOUNCE: Moving Sugar to GPLv3+
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 take advantage of the or any later version clause in the current license. We're not retroactively re-licensing existing code. This isn't actually true. You can't change the license on my code -- it's still GPLv2 or later. You can make a combined work where the new parts are GPLv3, and you can redistribute it under the terms of the GPLv3 (because of the or later), but you cannot change the license on the existing code unless you are the sole owner. That is why the FSF does copyright assignment. Isn't this exactly what I wrote? We're not retroactively re-licensing existing code. (See discussions on the net, for example: http://lwn.net/Articles/228354/ ) I'm also opposed to this change, for three reasons: a) code of the affected code is mine, and i don't want to do it. 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? b) it seems to have no point, other than a philosophic one. I'm opposed to change-for-change sake in this matter; it can only make things worse, and I see nothing which is being made *better*. To me, this seems like the GPv3 has a long list of *practical* advantages over the GPLv2: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/quick-guide-gplv3.html A clearer patent license, better compatibility with other licenses, anti-tivoization, protection from the DMCA, no ambiguities for distributors, easier path to return into compliance for accidental violations... (Ironically, moving to GPLv3 is taking freedoms *away* from users of Sugar). Which freedoms are being taken away from the users of Sugar? -- Bernie Innocenti Sugar Labs Infrastructure Team http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Infrastructure_Team ___ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] [IAEP] ANNOUNCE: Moving Sugar to GPLv3+
On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 8:00 PM, Bernie Innocenti ber...@sugarlabs.org wrote: Isn't this exactly what I wrote? No, you wrote: Q: How is the actual license change done? A: We need to replace the COPYING file in the source code and update the headers of all source files. This operation can easily be automated. which I don't think is allowed. --scott -- ( http://cscott.net ) ___ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] [IAEP] ANNOUNCE: Moving Sugar to GPLv3+
On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 8:00 PM, Bernie Innocenti ber...@sugarlabs.org wrote: (Ironically, moving to GPLv3 is taking freedoms *away* from users of Sugar). Which freedoms are being taken away from the users of Sugar? You are taking away the right to distribute Sugar under the GPLv2. --scott -- ( http://cscott.net ) ___ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
