On Sun, 2011-06-05 at 04:03 +0200, Christoph Derndorfer wrote: > Am 05.06.2011 02:57, schrieb Bernie Innocenti: > > I'd like to propose the following agenda topics: > > > > * Membership fees > > Could you elaborate what you have in mind here? :-)
It's a prototype idea, not yet discussed anywhere yet. I'd like to know what the board members would think about asking a yearly fee from members and, in case there's interest, how it could be implemented. I've done some research on how other foundations and free software projects like us handle memberships, but I've not yet made my mind on what works best. > Oh, and what about the licensing issue, has that topic been settled or > will it require further discussion among the SLOBs and/or the larger > community? We've discussed Scratch's licensing issues last week on #sugar and then on #acetarium (a social channel in which some Media Lab folks hang out). The very short summary is that there are two different licenses for Scratch: one for the source code, which prohibits calling the resulting binary Scratch and uploading projects to the website, and one for binaries, which doesn't allow modification. It's hard to notice the problem, because they don't mention it even in the license FAQ. I'm not in direct contact with whoever came up with these licensing terms, I've just been told that someone at the Media Lab was afraid that, if Scratch were distributed as free software, people would create incompatible forks of the language. Then one would wonder why popular free software languages such as Python, PHP, Perl and Ruby haven't ever been forked. There are better ways than a non-free license to prevent fragmentation. As things stand, Scratch is in violation of our licensing policy (which coincides with the licensing policy of Fedora and most distributions). We could make an exception just for Scratch because it's so popular, but now there are additional complications. TOAST, which adheres to Trisquel's free software rules, can't even distribute the Sugar with the activity updater pointing at ASLO until we remove Scratch. I'd like to discuss our options during the next board meeting. (until then, let's try to avoid having another licensing flame on iaep) -- Bernie Innocenti Sugar Labs Infrastructure Team http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Infrastructure_Team _______________________________________________ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep