On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 12:06 PM, Dave Crossland <d...@lab6.com> wrote: > > On 20 April 2016 at 10:15, Chris Leonard <cjlhomeaddr...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> We strongly encourage suitable licensing and attempt to use what leverage >> we have (e.g. to host on ASLO or not) to nudge people in the path of >> righteousness. > > > Why not just have Sugar under GPL, then? >
Sorry, forgot to include the obligatory IANAL in my reply. I can't personally address your specific questions, IANAL, my attempt at communicating some previous history was not intended to convey the official opinion of Sugar Labs or it's fiscal sponsor, the Conservancy (SFC). I only meant to say that when issues arise we try to deal with them responsibly as a community dedicated to our stated principles. We are very fortunate (through our fiscal sponsor) to have access to some people who not only think very deep thoughts about open source software licensing, but actually go out and fight the good fight to defend those rights. The Conservancy has often stated that compliance (not conflict) is their goal (paraphrasing there) and has done excellent work by using "soft power" and persuasion to achieve ends far more valuable than a court order. Sugar Labs has generally followed a similar strategy and I hope will continue to do so. To turn this discussion from theory to the practical, I am developing a spreadsheet fo all activities hosted on ASLO. My purpose is initially related to i18n/L10n matters, so I am working on columns defining the canonical repo, whether or not it has i18n, whether or not it is currently hosted on Pootle, etc. Let's pick an agreed upon format 9wiki, Google spreadsheet, whatever as long as it supports table format and ideally sorting ,and I'll drop my information there. We'll make stone soup or whatever your cultural variant of that is. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stone_Soup If someone would go through and add a column for license information and someone else would go through and add a column for GTK3 porting we'd have a useful resource that is more accessible for such global questions that the current one-by-one review of activities in ASLO. Sadly, it will quickly fall out of concurrency and need to be done all over again unless we develop some self-reporting tricks like the proposals to include such information in activity.info files and build a parsing-reporting tool, but in the meantime there will have been a top-to-bottom sweep that might catch things of interest that can be resolved. What format do people favor for something with a few hundreds rows and a dozen or so columns? cjl _______________________________________________ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep