On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 8:10 AM, Gabriel Eirea <gei...@gmail.com> wrote: > There are apparently a few facts from Plan Ceibal's deployment that > are not well known in the community. This surprises me, given that > some of you have been here in Uruguay and I was under the assumption > that you were well aware of these facts. I will refrain to give my > opinion and describe a few facts relevant to this discussion. > > Fact 1: in Plan Ceibal the XO 1.0 and XO 1.5-HS don't provide access > to root.This means that Sugar can't be modified by children. Fun > things like changing the home view layout or changing the XO icon, > among many other things, are impossible (Sugar activities, on the > other hand, can be changed since they are located in the user's home > directory). This also means that although the XO 1.5-HS comes with > Dextrose and a dual Sugar-Gnome desktop, the Gnome desktop is nearly > useless because children can install absolutely no additional software > packages (they can't do "yum install").
I believe that root access is being provided routinely as part of the current OS upgrade. > > Fact 2: Plan Ceibal does not have a public and known process in place > for giving developer keys. If you ask to the call center, they have no > idea what you are talking about. If you ask people from the technical > department, they say the developer keys are only generated for > specific projects that require them, at universities or companies. > > Fact 3: for at least 3 years the response from some members of the > technical team of Plan Ceibal was that they were looking into ways to > lift these restrictions to the user but they have been unable to. I presume "these restrictions" refers to developer keys? They have a way of providing root access. > > Fact 4: there was (is) a pilot project in the department of Treinta y > Tres where they gave 3.000 or 5.000 XO 1.0 (quantity depending on > sources) with an additional SD card that allowed booting with Windows > XP. For this being possible, the tight security implemented in the > rest of the country in the name of deterring theft was disabled. In > order to boot with Sugar the children should take the SD out, > something that apparently everyone was unaware of. According to [0] > the XO laptops were donated by OLPC, while the software licenses and > training were donated by Microsoft. Very little is known publicly > about this pilot, in particular the evaluation that was supposed to > happen. This is new information to me. -walter > > These are facts. I hope this helps the community take an informed > decision on this issue. > > Regards, > > Gabriel > > > [0] > http://www.ces.edu.uy/ces/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1208:plan-ceibal-en-ces&catid=101:plan-ceibal-ces&Itemid=192 > > > > 2011/4/24 Walter Bender <walter.ben...@gmail.com>: >> On Sat, Apr 23, 2011 at 10:34 PM, Sebastian Silva >> <sebast...@somosazucar.org> wrote: >>> From the olpc-uruguay list in an unrelated thread: >>> >>> "Si utilizamos las claves de desarrollador (que son las que permiten hacer >>> cualquier cosa en la maquina), pero al momento solo se entregan por >>> solicitudes puntuales (proyectos de grado por ejemplo)." - Ing. Daniel >>> Castelo - Plan Ceibal - Área Técnica >>> http://lists.laptop.org/pipermail/olpc-uruguay/2011-April/005222.html >>> Rough translation: >>> "We do use developer keys (the ones that allow you to do anything with the >>> machine), but at the moment they are only given for specific requests (like >>> for example thesis projects)." - Eng Daniel Castelo - Plan Ceibal - >>> Technical Area >>> >>> >>> I know its not official but its a pretty clear indication that developer >>> keys are not available to everyone. >>> This makes Yama's concerns valid and important, I think. >>> Since the board will probably meet in UY next month, this should be an item >>> in our agenda. >>> >>> Sebastian >>> >> >> There are (at least) three different issues that are being convolved >> here: (1) access to developer keys; (2) root access; and (3) the >> ability to modify Sugar as per the GPL. >> >> Since this is a Sugar list and the Sugar community only has >> "authority" over Sugar, let's address #3 first. Is there evidence of a >> violation of the GPL? Are the children of Uruguay are being denied >> access to Sugar source or the ability to modify it? Since Yama brought >> up his "concerns" but no accompanying evidence, we have asked >> repeatedly for evidence. Without it, there is not anything actionable >> for the Sugar board to do. >> >> Regarding #2, root access -- which is beyond the scope of Sugar Labs >> itself but not beyond the scope of the interests of many Sugar >> community members -- as Bernie pointed out, there is a plan under way >> to provide the children with root access. The evidence for this is in >> the code. Is there any contrary evidence? If there is, as members of >> the broader community, we may wish to take some action. But (a), I >> have seen no such evidence; and (b) even if such evidence existed, I >> don't think that Sugar Labs as an organization has any say in the >> matter. It is not our code or license at issue. >> >> Regarding #3, independently of any role I have at Sugar Labs, I have >> asked the SFLC to offer advice to OLPC and Ceibal on this matter. I am >> unaware of the current status of this discussion, but again, it is >> beyond the scope of Sugar Labs. I don't see what the Sugar Labs board >> can or should do. >> >> The FSF has pretty clear guidelines regarding what to do if you >> suspect there is a violation of the GPL (See >> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-violation.html). >> >> "Note that the GPL, and other copyleft licenses, are copyright >> licenses. This means that only the copyright holders are empowered to >> act against violations. The FSF acts on all GPL violations reported on >> FSF copyrighted code, and we offer assistance to any other copyright >> holder who wishes to do the same. >> >> But, we cannot act on our own if we do not hold copyright. Thus, be >> sure to find out who the copyright holders of the software are before >> reporting a violation." >> >> Likewise, Sugar Labs has an obligation to act on all GPL violations >> reported on Sugar Labs copyrighted code. But we cannot act on our own >> if we do not hold copyright. >> >> -walter >> >>> >>> El 23/04/11 13:49, Yamandu Ploskonka escribió: >>> >>> following Martin's timely advice, may I please try again, so we can finish >>> this with simple answers? >>> >>> the question is (or are) >>> >>> is locking users out in compliance with current GPL? >>> does Ceibal lock out users? >>> is there a known procedure to get keys for Ceibal users? >>> is Ceibal in compliance with current GPL? >>> if no, who should follow up? the FSF? the Sugarlabs Board? >>> were of-record (2, 3) Ceibal policies to continue, would it be in compliance >>> with GPL3? >>> if no, who should follow up? the FSF? the Sugarlabs Board? >>> >>> I know that 2 and 3 are almost rhetorical, but in the interest of not >>> building other questions as "loaded", I add them there. There even might be >>> good news I am unaware of that someone who is better informed can offer! >>> >>> Thank you >>> >>> Yama >>> >>> >>> On 04/23/2011 01:16 PM, Martin Langhoff wrote: >>> >>> Folks -- >>> >>> one thing we need to be in good intellectual shape to handle loaded >>> questions. Everyone here probably knows them well, but I just re-read >>> >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question >>> >>> and it was rather refreshing and useful. >>> >>> In general, if you don't know much about a topic, it is a good idea to >>> *avoid* making inflammatory statements and accusations. >>> >>> You can ask, but please don't mix the valid questions with accusations >>> or loaded questions. It doesn't help anyone. >>> >>> cheers, >>> >>> >>> m >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> SLOBs mailing list >>> sl...@lists.sugarlabs.org >>> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/slobs >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Sugar-devel mailing list >>> sugar-de...@lists.sugarlabs.org >>> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel >>> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Walter Bender >> Sugar Labs >> http://www.sugarlabs.org >> _______________________________________________ >> Sugar-devel mailing list >> sugar-de...@lists.sugarlabs.org >> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel >> > -- Walter Bender Sugar Labs http://www.sugarlabs.org _______________________________________________ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep