Re: [Sugar-devel] [IAEP] ANNOUNCE: Moving Sugar to GPLv3+
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 through a quite painful process of petitioning *all* copyright holders for a formal restoration of the license. Under the 'good behavior' clause of the GPLv3, the licence can be restored simply by deploying a remedy. Making it easy to recover from your mistakes is in the spirit of Sugar and our pedagogical model. 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
Re: [Sugar-devel] [IAEP] ANNOUNCE: Moving Sugar to GPLv3+
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 to do something like that. Good news is -- if SL likes that, GPLv2 doesn't encode a mechanism for a path to restoration; so nothing blocks a project from stating its practices for restoration. As a promise from the copyright holder, it effectively extends the license. You can't extend GPL adding restrictions, but you can sure add promises :-) (The project would need agreement from copyright holders - just once.) m -- martin.langh...@gmail.com mar...@laptop.org -- Software Architect - OLPC - ask interesting questions - don't get distracted with shiny stuff - working code first - http://wiki.laptop.org/go/User:Martinlanghoff ___ 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 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, 2006): ** Q6b: Second question, when people start to update their licences to the new versions, how will that happen in practice? RMS: In practice, any program that says it can be distributed under GPL version two or later will automatically be available under GPL version 3, but, when people make subsequent releases, they can change that to say GPL version 3 or later, that's what we will do in subsequent releases of GNU software. The FSF can do this because they own the copyright on all their code (via mandatory copyright assignment). In fact, they've done this on my code, too -- I've assigned copyright on patches to the FSF. I'm not objecting to the FSF doing this, or to the GPLv3 in general -- I'm objecting to dragging *Sugar* through a debate it has no part in, for no compelling reason. Since the FSF has maintained explicit copyright over its code for the explicit stated reason to allow it to move aggressively to hold the left of the copyright wars, I have no objection to the FSF using my code for this purpose. That's why I support the FSF, and why I contribute code to them. That's *not* part of SugarLab's core goals (unless you somehow think that the GPLv2 is no longer a free software license). I object to the Sugar code being manipulated as a pawn in this fight. It has enough battles of its own to fight without being dragged into more. --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 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 code to make political statements for their own sake. 2) I thought this was what our use of the GPLv2 accomplished. How is the GPLv2 no longer free? --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+
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 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 critical tasks? david ___ 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 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 critical tasks? What are the critical tasks we should be working on and why couldn't we work on them in parallel with the license update? The argument that updating the license would cost us too much time has already been made... three times. If we'd stop making the same argument over and over, we'd save *plenty* of time! :-) -- 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 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 GPL3, but somehow i think there must be more to it. i.e., what exactly are the arguments in favor of _sugar_ changing licenses? i have no stake in this decision at all -- i'm just wondering about the why. Sorry Paul, I had missed your reply to the list. You and Christoph asked similar questions and I'd like to answer both of them comprehensively, but tonight I'm too tired to write more than just a short summary :-) To me, the reasons already given in the GPLv3 quick guide (*) are relevant to most free software, and therefore also to Sugar. Even if some of the reasons for updating the license are of legal nature and we're not lawyers, it doesn't mean there's no tangible advantage for the project. A license is a legal document, after all, so if we're looking for technical advantages, we're simply looking in the wrong place. Christoph also asked what strategic advantages the GPLv3 would bring in the surrounding ecosystem: Sugar is a member project of the Software Freedom Conservancy, and has a strong bound with the Free Software Foundation in the form of donated hosting and infrastructure for the past 3 years. In this regard, it makes sense for us to be using the latest published version of their license. If we managed to make Sugar endorsed by the GNU project, or even make it to the high-priority free software list, this could result in extra visibility and funding for development. Currently, Sugar official releases don't even make it to the LWN announcements page, unlike tiny and obscure GNU packages such as m4 and gettext. The main point being debated in this thread is the so-called anti-TiVo clause. For people like me, it's a necessary fix to make the GPL continue to work as intended in this era of locked-down devices and laws prohibiting modifications such as the DMCA. For Martin (and Scott?) the anti-TiVo clause is overly restrictive and the manifestation of a radical political agenda. 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. (*) http://www.gnu.org/licenses/quick-guide-gplv3.html Bernie, thanks a lot for your response, much appreciated. Having said that I'd be lying if I claimed to understand all the details now. Both sides of the argument seem to make some good points though without having any experience in the area nor training in the deeper legal issues I personally think it's hard if not impossible to make a call here. So what I'm more focused on at this point is the process for this decision. You started this thread by writing The oversight board is considering a motion to upgrade the license of Sugar from GPLv2 or later to GPLv3 or later. which sounds like SLOBs will be taking an executive decision on this matter, or am I misunderstanding something here? If that is indeed the case then I'd love to hear what other board members think because apart from you and Sebastian nobody has commented on this topic yet. 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 argued that contributors and maintainers have so far spoken up in this thread but users and distributors haven't. I'm not quite sure why this is the case but it's probably safe to assume that David has somewhat of a point when he says that licensing isn't necessarily on the critical path of tasks for users and deployments (which says nothing about whether licensing should or shouldn't be a critical task for Sugar Labs itself IMHO). Additionally I would suggest that reaching out to the relevant people and organisations privately, pointing them to this thread, and encouraging them to post their opinion might get some replies as not everybody follows sugar-devel and IAEP religiously. Cheers, Christoph -- Christoph Derndorfer co-editor, olpcnews url: www.olpcnews.com e-mail: christ...@olpcnews.com ___ 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 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 argued that contributors and maintainers have so far spoken up in this thread but users and distributors haven't. I'm not quite sure why this is the case but it's probably safe to assume that David has somewhat of a point when he says that licensing isn't necessarily on the critical path of tasks for users and deployments (which says nothing about whether licensing should or shouldn't be a critical task for Sugar Labs itself IMHO). Additionally I would suggest that reaching out to the relevant people and organisations privately, pointing them to this thread, and encouraging them to post their opinion might get some replies as not everybody follows sugar-devel and IAEP religiously. Well, let me then speak up as package maintainer for Debian: I wholeheartedly agree with Martin here. GPL-2+ signals a different political message than GPL-3+. I am quite interested myself in the more aggressive GPL-3, but find it problematic FSF decided to label GPL-3 as a successor of GPL-2 instead of renaming the stem. The reason is that in my opinion GPL-3 - as Aferro-GPL - is not improved wording of same intended license, but changes the game. I therefore find it rude of projects to abuse the flaw in FSF license naming by bumping from GPL2 to GPL3. It is cheating the authors. I lack some responses in this thread from authors with the viewpoint of oh thank you for taking care of my interests and refining my original intend by bumping to that new version of the GPL which more clearly states the same thing as I wanted back when I released my code to you. That was representing myself only. Debian officially is not pushing towards GPLv3 but accepts anything that fits the Debian Free Software Guidelines - which includes both agressive licenses like GPLv2 and GPLv3, and passive ones like BSD-3-clause and Expat (a.k.a. MIT). I have very much enjoyed following this discussion. Thanks for the well reflected arguments on both sides! Regards, and good luck with this process, - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ 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 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 always used and liked the GPLv2 because it ensures the sharing of the code. What is done with said code was never the business of GPLv2. GPLv3 starts getting its nose into the how it is used side. 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. For both licenses, distribution of the software in binary form must to be accompanied by the full source code (or a promise to provide such source upon request). Additionally, the GPLv3 specifies that users must be provided with any authorization keys required to install and execute modified versions of the software. This is the heart of the anti-tivo clause. There's no explicit prohibition to use GPLv3 software on a locked-down platform, as long as users are given the ability to install modified versions the GPLv3 code (and not the entire OS). Of course, if the GPLv3 software happened to be the kernel itself, jail-breaking would become trivial. There's even explicit wording allowing employers to have workers or contractors use GPL'd software without automatically transferring them any rights: Can you point me to the relevant section on this? The definition of conveying is in section 0. Definitions.. It excludes things such as thin-clients or terminals (whereas the GPLv2 may be ambiguous). The additional exception which allows employers to give code to their employees without triggering distribution is in 2. Basic Permissions. Those thus making or running the covered works for you must do so exclusively on your behalf, under your direction and control, on terms that prohibit them from making any copies of your copyrighted material outside their relationship with you. Is that the wording? So for this to stick employees using a locked-down machine can't copy binaries to a removable disk? My interpretation of the above paragraph is that they can copy binaries anywhere they like, as long as this is part of their work. If you allow your employers to make personal copies and take them home, then you must give them the full set of rights that the GPL would normally imply. The GPLv2 was stricter than the GPLv3 in this regard, there was no exception at all. A few years ago, a large American publisher of schoolbooks asked us to implement features for copyright control, so they could sell their books to students ensure they couldn't exchange copies. In Paraguay, a local publisher came up with another scheme involving Adobe Flash to limit what users could do or not do with books. With the GPLv2 alone, any deployment or hardware vendor could make a deal with a publisher and turn Sugar into a Kindle full of DRM. Well, I don't much like the above, and wouldn't personally do it. However, GPL never gave me any rights upon how users use of my software, or in which direction developers may develop it. Get the hang of this: licensing software GPL, any version, I am allowing many dictators to use it to do, coordinate, automate and organize the most horrid actions you can think of. Torture? Check. Murder? You bet! And this isn't hard to get over. In this respect, the GPLv2 and the GPLv3 are identical, because there are no limitations on usage. GPLv2 is a humble instrument. Licensee, do whatever you want, but share the source when you distribute. The spirit of the GPL share alike, but giving out the source code is not in itself sufficient to preserve all rights every time the software changes hands. To fully benefit from Freedom 1, users need the ability to compile, install and run modified versions of the program. In this respect, the GPLv2 had an unfortunate bug: it's possible for the right to run modified versions of the program to decay when such program is embedded in a locked-down device such as a TiVo, an iPhone or a Kindle. In what *planet* do you live? Honestly, GPLv3 is controversial amongst anyone whose work is possibly tivoized. It was so all through the drafting process. Ok, that's true, but it shouldn't be controversial among *us*. I can see why Apple or Microsoft would fear the GPLv3, but are we in the business of exploiting our users through DRM? It's not happening right now, but one day someone could get the idea to take the wicked business model of ebook readers into the world of education. By going with the GPLv3, we'll prevent this sort of things from ever happening in the future. -- Bernie Innocenti Sugar Labs Infrastructure Team http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Infrastructure_Team ___ Sugar-devel mailing list
Re: [Sugar-devel] [IAEP] ANNOUNCE: Moving Sugar to GPLv3+
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 at 03:38 -0400, Martin Langhoff wrote: What is done with said code was never the business of GPLv2. GPLv3 starts getting its nose into the how it is used side. 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 unlocking the DRM so you actually can't. That is squarely the intention of v3. So then you write It's not happening right now, but one day someone could get the idea to take the wicked business model of ebook readers into the world of education. By going with the GPLv3, we'll prevent this sort of things from ever happening in the future. Hey! You can't have it both ways. Either you are dictating how it is used, or you are not. Someone could have the wicked idea of using Sugar to teach a whole lot of things that could go very much against what OLPC is all about. Should we start revising GPLv3 to restrict a whole lot of things that are contrary to OLPC and SugarLabs' goals? Racism, sexism, hate, xenophobia, partisan rewriting of history... the list is long and sadly colourful. Mind if I say that DRM is very *very* far down that particular list? :-) Or should we stay clear of that mess, and keep the license apolitical and focused on sharing the source? It is clear that FSF does not like DRM, and I respect that position. However, it is a topic of *how* the software is used, and that is an essentially political topic. I'll comment below on a few side-topics -- ... There's no explicit prohibition to use GPLv3 software on a locked-down platform, as long as users are given the ability to install modified versions the GPLv3 code (and not the entire OS). Of course, if the GPLv3 software happened to be the kernel itself, jail-breaking would become trivial. Agreed, and this is very relevant to Sugar. In what *planet* do you live? Honestly, GPLv3 is controversial amongst anyone whose work is possibly tivoized. It was so all through the drafting process. Ok, that's true, but it shouldn't be controversial among *us*. I am surprised you are surprised. Not everyone thinks like the FSF, even if we have good friends there :-) GPLv2 has been _such a successful license_ in its share-and-share-alike side that people use it not because they squarely believe in FSF's goals, but because they believe in much humbler goals, like keep the source open by sharing it. There are lots of uses of software that aren't aligned to our dreams and goals. But the license is very much the wrong place to try to advance them. cheers, m -- martin.langh...@gmail.com mar...@laptop.org -- Software Architect - OLPC - ask interesting questions - don't get distracted with shiny stuff - working code first - http://wiki.laptop.org/go/User:Martinlanghoff ___ 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 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 unlocking the DRM so you actually can't. That is squarely the intention of v3. So then you write It's not happening right now, but one day someone could get the idea to take the wicked business model of ebook readers into the world of education. By going with the GPLv3, we'll prevent this sort of things from ever happening in the future. Hey! You can't have it both ways. Either you are dictating how it is used, or you are not. Sorry, I've been ambiguous, but my statements arn't really in conflict. Here's why: There's no clause in the GPLv3 that says you shall not implement DRM or you must let users unlock DRM. Such a clause would make me very happy, but it would go beyond what is strictly necessary to protect the rights associated with free software. I guess most people who don't like the GPLv3 are interpreting it this way. What the GPLv3 *really* says, is that you must give your users a mean to replace the GPLv3-covered portion of the software with a modified version of it. This mean could come in the form of an authorization key. To make a real-world, if Sugar were the only GPLv3 component in Fedora 11, the distributor would have to give the users a mean to run a modified version of Sugar. Not X11 or the kernel, just Sugar. If Sugar implemented some DRM in it, such DRM would be easily defeated. But if the DRM were in the Read activity or in the kernel, the GPLv3 wouldn't have anything to say on them. Someone could have the wicked idea of using Sugar to teach a whole lot of things that could go very much against what OLPC is all about. Should we start revising GPLv3 to restrict a whole lot of things that are contrary to OLPC and SugarLabs' goals? Racism, sexism, hate, xenophobia, partisan rewriting of history... the list is long and sadly colourful. Mind if I say that DRM is very *very* far down that particular list? :-) DRM isn't an abstract idea! DRM is a mean for preventing users from modifying a piece of software running on a computer. This is in conflict with the very notion of Free Software. Or should we stay clear of that mess, and keep the license apolitical and focused on sharing the source? It is clear that FSF does not like DRM, and I respect that position. However, it is a topic of *how* the software is used, and that is an essentially political topic. Indeed, it's a political (or ethical) question: for many of us, Sugar isn't Free Software just by accident. We wouldn't commit our time to work on a proprietary educational platform sold by Apple or Microsoft. If we wanted to see our work exploited for making children's iPads and Kindles, then we'd better license everything under the BSD; this way there wouldn't be any inconvenient obligations to fulfill for the vendor :-) 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. -- 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+
[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 arguments in favor of _sugar_ changing licenses? i have no stake in this decision at all -- i'm just wondering about the why. Sorry Paul, I had missed your reply to the list. You and Christoph asked similar questions and I'd like to answer both of them comprehensively, but tonight I'm too tired to write more than just a short summary :-) To me, the reasons already given in the GPLv3 quick guide (*) are relevant to most free software, and therefore also to Sugar. Even if some of the reasons for updating the license are of legal nature and we're not lawyers, it doesn't mean there's no tangible advantage for the project. A license is a legal document, after all, so if we're looking for technical advantages, we're simply looking in the wrong place. Christoph also asked what strategic advantages the GPLv3 would bring in the surrounding ecosystem: Sugar is a member project of the Software Freedom Conservancy, and has a strong bound with the Free Software Foundation in the form of donated hosting and infrastructure for the past 3 years. In this regard, it makes sense for us to be using the latest published version of their license. If we managed to make Sugar endorsed by the GNU project, or even make it to the high-priority free software list, this could result in extra visibility and funding for development. Currently, Sugar official releases don't even make it to the LWN announcements page, unlike tiny and obscure GNU packages such as m4 and gettext. The main point being debated in this thread is the so-called anti-TiVo clause. For people like me, it's a necessary fix to make the GPL continue to work as intended in this era of locked-down devices and laws prohibiting modifications such as the DMCA. For Martin (and Scott?) the anti-TiVo clause is overly restrictive and the manifestation of a radical political agenda. 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. (*) http://www.gnu.org/licenses/quick-guide-gplv3.html -- 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 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 famous Four Freedoms. Back when the GPLv2 was created, nobody had yet figured out that tivoization could be used to game the license and effectively deny users the freedom to modify the software. 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 always used and liked the GPLv2 because it ensures the sharing of the code. What is done with said code was never the business of GPLv2. GPLv3 starts getting its nose into the how it is used side. There's even explicit wording allowing employers to have workers or contractors use GPL'd software without automatically transferring them any rights: Can you point me to the relevant section on this? Those thus making or running the covered works for you must do so exclusively on your behalf, under your direction and control, on terms that prohibit them from making any copies of your copyrighted material outside their relationship with you. Is that the wording? So for this to stick employees using a locked-down machine can't copy binaries to a removable disk? A few years ago, a large American publisher of schoolbooks asked us to implement features for copyright control, so they could sell their books to students ensure they couldn't exchange copies. In Paraguay, a local publisher came up with another scheme involving Adobe Flash to limit what users could do or not do with books. With the GPLv2 alone, any deployment or hardware vendor could make a deal with a publisher and turn Sugar into a Kindle full of DRM. Well, I don't much like the above, and wouldn't personally do it. However, GPL never gave me any rights upon how users use of my software, or in which direction developers may develop it. Get the hang of this: licensing software GPL, any version, I am allowing many dictators to use it to do, coordinate, automate and organize the most horrid actions you can think of. Torture? Check. Murder? You bet! And this isn't hard to get over. (And I don't say this lightly, having grown up in a country blighted by a nasty civil war, with family members on both sides.) GPLv2 is a humble instrument. Licensee, do whatever you want, but share the source when you distribute. - 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? Which negative controversy, the one you're personally fueling? This is kind of a circular argument :-) In what *planet* do you live? Honestly, GPLv3 is controversial amongst anyone whose work is possibly tivoized. It was so all through the drafting process. 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. No -- there is no upside I can see. Sugar's license hasn't been in the business of restricting usage, and it should not get there. cheers, m -- martin.langh...@gmail.com mar...@laptop.org -- Software Architect - OLPC - ask interesting questions - don't get distracted with shiny stuff - working code first - http://wiki.laptop.org/go/User:Martinlanghoff ___ 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+
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 their licences to the new versions, how will that happen in practice? RMS: In practice, any program that says it can be distributed under GPL version two or later will automatically be available under GPL version 3, but, when people make subsequent releases, they can change that to say GPL version 3 or later, that's what we will do in subsequent releases of GNU software. ** (I remember this because it was I who recorded all of the video audio that day) Sean On Sat, Apr 23, 2011 at 1:47 AM, Chris Ball c...@laptop.org wrote: 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 the right thing to do is? I chatted with some FSF staffers on IRC, they agree with Bernie's interpretation that modifying COPYING and the source headers *is* the way that you choose to redistribute under the GPLv3+ instead, and that it's a modification of the license that was explicitly allowed ahead of time by the or later clause. They haven't yet been able to find any documentation that explains this or backs it up, though. - Chris. -- Chris Ball c...@laptop.org http://printf.net/ One Laptop Per Child ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) i...@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep ___ 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: 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... programmers that liked GPLv2 due to its share-and-share-alike quid-pro-quo (like me, perhaps Scott too) trusted FSF for have future versions be bugfix versions. So I've also published GPLv2 bits and now I wish I hadn't. Some things in v3 are bugfixes -- the license compatibility, the patent wording (though it could scare some corporations that do hold patents). But the anti-tivoization clause changes the social contract significantly -- it moves towards a new territory that is problematic. 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. To me, this seems like the GPv3 has a long list of *practical* advantages over the GPLv2: None of those seem interesting to Sugar. A clearer patent license, no ambiguities for distributors Nice, but GPLv2 is well understood by now. better compatibility with other licenses, A high-profile, well-liked project like Sugar never has problem to get a dual-license grant from any incompat license. I've requested -- and obtained -- such dual-licenses from many (PHP-licensed) projects that we wanted to include in Moodle (GPLv2, and not as high profile as Sugar). anti-tivoization This is rather problematic. While it doesn't affect OLPC/bitfrost, it can affect situations where I'd like to see Sugar in use. For example a well-setup thin-client / terminal server (like SkoleLinux/DebianEdu) may lockdown X so that .xsession is ignored. protection from the DMCA Not relevant. Sugar ain't mplayer. easier path to return into compliance for accidental violations... Nice but... was that ever a problem? There's ample best practice around accidental violations. It doesn't change anything. So my questions are - 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? cheers, m -- martin.langh...@gmail.com mar...@laptop.org -- Software Architect - OLPC - ask interesting questions - don't get distracted with shiny stuff - working code first - http://wiki.laptop.org/go/User:Martinlanghoff ___ 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 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 see Sugar being used as a pawn in some larger argument (about I know not what) and want no part of it. No compelling reason to change license; let's stay as far away from that rathole as possible. People are already free to make a gnewsense of themselves and distribute combined works under GPLv3 terms. Fedora-based distros are arguably doing just that. But going through and changing license information in everyone's source files without their explicit consent (and denying the right to do future distribution under the terms of the GPLv2 *is* a change: GPLv2 or later != GPLv3 or later) -- that's just causing a ruckus for no reason. Please don't start that fight. --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 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 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. Really? By moving to GPLv3 your removing the ability to use GPLv2 which is by definition a re-license of the code. Peter ___ 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 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 under later versions of the GPL is explicitly allowed by the current licensing terms (GPLv2 or later). If it weren't the case, then we'd have to ask for permissions to all copyright holders, which includes present and past contributors of legally relevant portions of the code. What constitutes a legally relevant portion is a matter of infinite arguments between copyright lawyers. -- 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 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 of the code. Not really, this is a common misconception: redistributing code under later versions of the GPL is explicitly allowed by the current licensing terms (GPLv2 or later). If it weren't the case, then we'd have to ask for permissions to all copyright holders, which includes present and past contributors of legally relevant portions of the code. What constitutes a legally relevant portion is a matter of infinite arguments between copyright lawyers. 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*. That is a different act. A more passive-aggressive means to your end might be to announce that SugarLabs will only accept new contributions which are licensed GPLv3+. That will effect the redistribution change you want, while still (a) pissing off parts of the community, and (b) not illegally altering the license on code you do not own. --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 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*. That is a different act. You are right but in practice in this case there isn't much difference. Anybody, following GPLv2, can just redistribute it under GPLv3, and you *could* track each file as to GPLv2, v3, or mixed. But that would be a lot of bureaucracy that wouldn't help anyone -- anybody interested in GPLv2 sources should just go to the last commit or release under v2. A more passive-aggressive means to your end might be to announce that SugarLabs will only accept new contributions which are licensed GPLv3+. That will effect the redistribution change you want, while still (a) pissing off parts of the community, and (b) not illegally altering the license on code you do not own. Honestly, option b is rather annoying if relevant authors/owners of the copyright aren't in agreement. But it has notthing illegal. The copyright lines are advisory only, and nonbinding. Of course, courts look unfavourably upon knowing infringers that remove (as upon anyone found hiding evidence) them but they aren't sacred in the normal course of things. cheers, m -- martin.langh...@gmail.com mar...@laptop.org -- Software Architect - OLPC - ask interesting questions - don't get distracted with shiny stuff - working code first - http://wiki.laptop.org/go/User:Martinlanghoff ___ 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 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. But if you alter the source files or replace COPYING, you are *changing the license*. That is a different act. You are right but in practice in this case there isn't much difference. Anybody, following GPLv2, can just redistribute it under GPLv3, and you *could* track each file as to GPLv2, v3, or mixed. But that would be a lot of bureaucracy that wouldn't help anyone -- anybody interested in GPLv2 sources should just go to the last commit or release under v2. A more passive-aggressive means to your end might be to announce that SugarLabs will only accept new contributions which are licensed GPLv3+. That will effect the redistribution change you want, while still (a) pissing off parts of the community, and (b) not illegally altering the license on code you do not own. Honestly, option b is rather annoying if relevant authors/owners of the copyright aren't in agreement. But it has notthing illegal. The copyright lines are advisory only, and nonbinding. Of course, courts look unfavourably upon knowing infringers that remove (as upon anyone found hiding evidence) them but they aren't sacred in the normal course of things. Before this thread ends up something that only copyright lawyers really understand I'd like to take a step back and ask what the SLOB's rationale behind the proposed motion to move from GPLv2 to GPLv3 is? In other words: What specific advantages does GPLv3 offer for Sugar, its community and the individuals, groups, and organizations/deployments using it? Thanks, Christoph -- Christoph Derndorfer co-editor, olpcnews url: www.olpcnews.com e-mail: christ...@olpcnews.com ___ 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+
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 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... programmers that liked GPLv2 due to its share-and-share-alike quid-pro-quo (like me, perhaps Scott too) trusted FSF for have future versions be bugfix versions. So I've also published GPLv2 bits and now I wish I hadn't. Some things in v3 are bugfixes -- the license compatibility, the patent wording (though it could scare some corporations that do hold patents). But the anti-tivoization clause changes the social contract significantly -- it moves towards a new territory that is problematic. 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 famous Four Freedoms. Back when the GPLv2 was created, nobody had yet figured out that tivoization could be used to game the license and effectively deny users the freedom to modify the software. The GPLv3 merely fixes an unforeseen loophole, additionally protecting users from the DMCA and similar laws that make it illegal to modify free software to get rid of DRM. anti-tivoization This is rather problematic. While it doesn't affect OLPC/bitfrost, it can affect situations where I'd like to see Sugar in use. For example a well-setup thin-client / terminal server (like SkoleLinux/DebianEdu) may lockdown X so that .xsession is ignored. This is actually a case in which the GPLv2 was ambiguous on what it means to distribute the software, whereas the GPLv3 explicitly excludes your particular scenario: To “convey” a work means any kind of propagation that enables other parties to make or receive copies. Mere interaction with a user through a computer network, with no transfer of a copy, is not conveying. There's even explicit wording allowing employers to have workers or contractors use GPL'd software without automatically transferring them any rights: Those thus making or running the covered works for you must do so exclusively on your behalf, under your direction and control, on terms that prohibit them from making any copies of your copyrighted material outside their relationship with you. See? It's the other way around: the GPLv3 grants you full permission to lock-down your own thin-clients. protection from the DMCA Not relevant. Sugar ain't mplayer. A few years ago, a large American publisher of schoolbooks asked us to implement features for copyright control, so they could sell their books to students ensure they couldn't exchange copies. In Paraguay, a local publisher came up with another scheme involving Adobe Flash to limit what users could do or not do with books. With the GPLv2 alone, any deployment or hardware vendor could make a deal with a publisher and turn Sugar into a Kindle full of DRM. So my questions are - What's the upside? I think the upsides are numerous. They're all given in the GPLv3 quick guide which I linked in my previous email. Further readings: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html http://www.gnu.org/licenses/rms-why-gplv3.html - 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? Which negative controversy, the one you're personally fueling? This is kind of a circular argument :-) In fact, this argument could also be reversed: hey, instead of fighting the GPLv3, why don't we spend our time doing productive things instead? Seriously: calling something a waste of time is just an old trick that can be used to shoot down any proposal: if the license upgrade were really so unimportant, you wouldn't take the time to argue against it. 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. -- 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+
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 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 the right thing to do is? - Chris. -- Chris Ball c...@laptop.org http://printf.net/ One Laptop Per Child ___ 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+
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 the right thing to do is? I chatted with some FSF staffers on IRC, they agree with Bernie's interpretation that modifying COPYING and the source headers *is* the way that you choose to redistribute under the GPLv3+ instead, and that it's a modification of the license that was explicitly allowed ahead of time by the or later clause. They haven't yet been able to find any documentation that explains this or backs it up, though. - Chris. -- Chris Ball c...@laptop.org http://printf.net/ One Laptop Per Child ___ 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+
chris wrote: 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 the right thing to do is? I chatted with some FSF staffers on IRC, they agree with Bernie's interpretation that modifying COPYING and the source headers *is* the way that you choose to redistribute under the GPLv3+ instead, and that it's a modification of the license that was explicitly allowed ahead of time by the or later clause. They haven't yet been able to find any documentation that explains this or backs it up, though. 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 arguments in favor of _sugar_ changing licenses? i have no stake in this decision at all -- i'm just wondering about the why. paul =- paul fox, p...@laptop.org ___ 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
