On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 7:18 PM, David Van Assche <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> The problem here is that edubuntu and its packages are in Ubuntu Main, > and for sugar to be in there, there must be no non-free software in > it, and squeak is not totally free. Apple fonts not being modifiable, > iirc. Its pretty much the same policy as debian. Scratch was recently > rejected from MOTU for the similar reasons. > > David Van Assche > Is the issue where squeak was originally licensed under a non-free Apple license[1] and the squeak foundations can't locate all of the original contributors[2] to convert it to an mit license? 1. http://www.squeak.org/SqueakLicense/ 2. http://netjam.org/squeak/contributors/missingSignatories david > > On 11/6/08, Bert Freudenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On 05.11.2008, at 13:55, David Farning wrote: > > > > > .One sticking point was the availability of squeak on Ubuntu. If I > > > > > remember this issue was beaten to death before I got involved with SL. > > > > > > I only remember discussion of getting it into Debian, not Ubuntu. > > Basically, even though the license issues are finally resolved, they > > did not want to have it in because they do not agree with its current > > development model: > > > > http://lists.laptop.org/pipermail/devel/2008-June/015479.html > > > > - Bert - > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Sugar mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/sugar > > > _______________________________________________ > Sugar mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/sugar >
_______________________________________________ Sugar mailing list [email protected] http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/sugar
