On Sat, Sep 16, 2017 at 7:19 PM, Samuel Greenfeld
wrote:
> I agree with Sameer; if we want to debate this, this really needs a
> lawyer's opinion. Either that or just asking OLPC Inc. what they consider
> acceptable.
>
In fact, getting a lawyer's opinion is exactly what we are doing.
>
> Sugar
2017-09-16 7:42 GMT-05:00 Walter Bender :
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 10:56 PM, Laura Vargas
> wrote:
>
>> Walter,
>>
>> I guess my question was not clear. My question is about the procedure to
>> address legal issues to Conservancy.
>>
>> The procedure you (SLOB) follow the first time you want
On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 10:56 PM, Laura Vargas
wrote:
> Walter,
>
> I guess my question was not clear. My question is about the procedure to
> address legal issues to Conservancy.
>
> The procedure you (SLOB) follow the first time you want to address
> Conservancy was to just ask Adam (Sugar Labs
Walter,
I guess my question was not clear. My question is about the procedure to
address legal issues to Conservancy.
The procedure you (SLOB) follow the first time you want to address
Conservancy was to just ask Adam (Sugar Labs rep to SFC) to make a question
to Tony.
The procedure you (SLOB) f
On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 4:39 PM, Laura Vargas wrote:
> Walter, Adam,
>
> Am confused here. Why did we not need a motion to make the question to
> Tony in the first place?
>
> Can you please clarify.
>
Tony asked for the opinion of the oversight board to several questions. I
posted those questio
Walter, Adam,
Am confused here. Why did we not need a motion to make the question to Tony
in the first place?
Can you please clarify.
Procedure Note: In my opinion such legal related motions should be
translated to Sugar Labs main users language: Spanish. This takes time but
needs to be done so
> On 15 Sep 2017, at 14:13, Lionel Laské wrote:
>
>
> +1 for the motion.
>
> @Martin, thanks to wait for all votes or at least the end of voting delay.
Sure Lionel - what is the voting delay? I actually was waiting but the wiki had
been updated already (not by me) so I figured as the wiki ha
+1 for the motion.
@Martin, thanks to wait for all votes or at least the end of voting delay.
Lionel.
2017-09-15 20:47 GMT+02:00 Adam Holt :
> I greatly support the gist of Walter's motion, and but before I vote would
> like clarification:
>
> In order to fully protect Sugar Labs, Wa
Hi Caryl,
Free and open source software projects allow for forking by design as a way
out of major disagreements. However if this disagreement is due to an
intellectual property issue (as it appears to be in the current
discussion), it is best handled by our legal counsel. Most of us are not
quali
9 matches
Mail list logo
