-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 06:24:48PM -0500, Chris Ball wrote: >Hi, > > >> I prefer to look at it pragmatically. Until there is some kind of > >> dependency handling for .xo packages, this is the difference > >> between a child at an existing deployment being able to browse to > >> the wiki, download an activity, and use it, or not being able to. > > > It's also the difference between following the license terms and > > not. > >Not in the case we're discussing; Box2D and pyBox2D are not licensed >under the GPL. While the complaint in general is reasonable, please >don't accuse people of breaching software licenses until they actually >do so.
I did not accuse of licensing breach, and I do not interpret Luke as doing so either. What I did was mention _some_ of the problems _generally_ tied to shipping .xo packages stuffed with binary chunks. - Jonas P.S. And a moment ago I succeeded compiling Box2d on amd64 using GCC 4.3.2. Still some way to go to have it properly compiled, but a good step in the right direction. - -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist og Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkl2Y1QACgkQn7DbMsAkQLgYTACgict1OtTCNyY5JdLm3HPpQt1B FzMAnje7qhRpGNe7f2V88dnQOi5Kd4Wi =VYVe -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel