Am 05.06.2011 06:33, schrieb Bernie Innocenti: > 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.
Interesting stuff! Looking forward to reading the SLOBs meeting log to see what everyone else thinks about this idea:-) >> 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) Okay, that sounds like a tough nut to crack. However the licensing issue I had meant to inquire about (though I did not at all make that clear in my previous message, mea culpa) is the one about GPL v2 vs. v3. In the May 13 Sugar-Digest Walter wrote "At the most recent Sugar oversight-board meeting, we agreed to use a referendum to take the pulse of the community (See http://meeting.sugarlabs.org/sugar-meeting/meetings/2011-05-08). Details to follow." so I had assumed that this topic would continue to be discussed by the SLOBs. Cheers, Christoph -- Christoph Derndorfer co-editor, www.olpcnews.com e-mail: christ...@olpcnews.com _______________________________________________ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep