Re: [sugar] [IAEP] Sugar on Edubuntu
On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 5:35 PM, David Farning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > 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 That was the problem. My understanding is that it has very nearly been dealt with. Yoshiki and Robin will know much more than I. = As mentioned in the leadership discussion minutes from Craig, the plan now is as follows: - Make Squeak version 4.0. This is based on the 3.11 effort but get rid of or rewrite code that are not relicensed and make a fully relicensed version relatively conservatively. Etoys 4.0 is now fully relicensed, and we can bring the removal and rewrite changesets from that stream. - Craig continue to work on the Spoon based system. It is dubbed Squeak 5.0. (My personal opinion is that because it is fairly different, it could have a different name, but...) BTW, during the Etoys' relicensing effort, I made a little web app that lets you view *all history* from Squeak V1 to the latest version: http://tinlizzie.org:8080/seaside/examples/authorship2 I can make a similar page for 3.10 or such, and also give a tool to check the unlicened code in a particular code base. Ken and Mathew, how does it sound? -- Yoshiki = Robin Norwood to fedora-olpc-li. Aug 11 Hi, For the few of you who aren't on the extensive Cc list, we've had a discussion about the Squeak license with Fedora legal (Tom Callaway) and VPRI (Kim Rose and others). To summarize: o As of this moment, there is probably still some code in Squeak that has not been properly moved to the MIT license. (Mostly because the original contributors can't be found). o Fedora can't accept code that is in this state. o Kim Rose says: """ My colleagues, Yoshiki Ohshima and Bert Freudenbeg (along with a few others) have been reviewing all code and our signed Relicensing Agreements for the past week or so. I believe they are stripping out any code that still remains in the image for which we do not have signed agreements to cover. I will meet with them upon my return from vacation week of August 18th to see exactly where we stand. """ So, it looks very hopeful that squeak will soon be entirely safe to include in Fedora, and we'll know more after the 18th. -RN -- Robin Norwood Red Hat, Inc. "The Sage does nothing, yet nothing remains undone." -Lao Tzu, Te Tao Ching -- Silent Thunder (默雷/धर्ममेघशब्दगर्ज/دھرممیگھشبدگر ج) is my name And Children are my nation. The Cosmos is my dwelling place, The Truth my destination. http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/User:Mokurai ___ Sugar mailing list Sugar@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/sugar
Re: [sugar] [IAEP] Sugar on Edubuntu
Thanks Edward, I see that you have cced Yoshiki and Robin. If they don't catch this thread, I follow up with them. thanks david On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 7:46 PM, Edward Cherlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 5:35 PM, David Farning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > > > 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 > > That was the problem. My understanding is that it has very nearly been > dealt with. Yoshiki and Robin will know much more than I. > = > As mentioned in the leadership discussion minutes from Craig, the > plan now is as follows: > > - Make Squeak version 4.0. This is based on the 3.11 effort but > get rid of or rewrite code that are not relicensed and make a > fully relicensed version relatively conservatively. Etoys 4.0 is > now fully relicensed, and we can bring the removal and rewrite > changesets from that stream. > > - Craig continue to work on the Spoon based system. It is dubbed > Squeak 5.0. (My personal opinion is that because it is fairly > different, it could have a different name, but...) > > BTW, during the Etoys' relicensing effort, I made a little web app > that lets you view *all history* from Squeak V1 to the latest version: > > http://tinlizzie.org:8080/seaside/examples/authorship2 > > I can make a similar page for 3.10 or such, and also give a tool to > check the unlicened code in a particular code base. > > Ken and Mathew, how does it sound? > > -- Yoshiki > = > Robin Norwood > to fedora-olpc-li. > > Aug 11 > > Hi, > > For the few of you who aren't on the extensive Cc list, we've had a > discussion about the Squeak license with Fedora legal (Tom Callaway) > and VPRI (Kim Rose and others). > > To summarize: > > o As of this moment, there is probably still some code in Squeak that > has not been properly moved to the MIT license. (Mostly because the > original contributors can't be found). > > o Fedora can't accept code that is in this state. > > o Kim Rose says: > > """ > My colleagues, Yoshiki Ohshima and Bert Freudenbeg (along with a few > others) have been reviewing all code and our signed Relicensing > Agreements for the past week or so. I believe they are stripping out > any code that still remains in the image for which we do not have > signed agreements to cover. I will meet with them upon my return > from vacation week of August 18th to see exactly where we stand. > """ > > So, it looks very hopeful that squeak will soon be entirely safe to > include in Fedora, and we'll know more after the 18th. > > -RN > > -- > Robin Norwood > Red Hat, Inc. > > "The Sage does nothing, yet nothing remains undone." > -Lao Tzu, Te Tao Ching > > > -- > Silent Thunder (默雷/धर्ममेघशब्दगर्ज/دھرممیگھشبدگر ج) is my name > And Children are my nation. > The Cosmos is my dwelling place, The Truth my destination. > http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/User:Mokurai > ___ Sugar mailing list Sugar@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/sugar
Re: [sugar] [IAEP] Sugar on Edubuntu
As of this summer, "all of the code contained in our Squeak Etoys version 4.0 is covered by either the Apache 2.0 or MIT Licenses." -walter On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 10:04 PM, David Van Assche <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I wasnt aware squeak was a firmware binary or a font... > > No but seriously, that passage talks about just fonts.. not software > that uses wrongly licensed components, which is what squeak is > > David > > On 11/6/08, Luke Faraone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >> On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 20:18, 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. >> >> This does not seem to be the case, according to >> http://www.ubuntu.com/community/ubuntustory/components >> : >> >> >> "The licences for software applications in main must be free, but main may >> also may contain binary firmware and selected fonts that cannot be modified >> without permission from their authors. In all cases redistribution is >> unencumbered." >> >> -lf >> >> > ___ > IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep > -- Walter Bender Sugar Labs http://www.sugarlabs.org ___ Sugar mailing list Sugar@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/sugar
Re: [sugar] [IAEP] Sugar on Edubuntu
On 06.11.2008, at 00:12, David Farning wrote: > Do you know who I should talk to about requesting that > http://www.squeak.org/SqueakLicense/ > be update to reflect this information? Squeak (at squeak.org) and Etoys (at vpri.org / squeakland.org) are two different versions that were last merged at Squeak version 3.8. The full relicensing for now only applies to the Etoys version, but the squeak.org version will certainly follow soon. - Bert - ___ Sugar mailing list Sugar@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/sugar
Re: [sugar] [IAEP] Sugar on Edubuntu
At Thu, 6 Nov 2008 00:53:11 -0800, Bert Freudenberg wrote: > > On 06.11.2008, at 00:12, David Farning wrote: > > > Do you know who I should talk to about requesting that > > http://www.squeak.org/SqueakLicense/ > > be update to reflect this information? > > > Squeak (at squeak.org) and Etoys (at vpri.org / squeakland.org) are > two different versions that were last merged at Squeak version 3.8. > The full relicensing for now only applies to the Etoys version, but > the squeak.org version will certainly follow soon. Yup. The license description for Etoys is available at: http://www.vpri.org/vp_wiki/index.php/Main_Page -- Yoshiki ___ Sugar mailing list Sugar@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/sugar
Re: [sugar] [IAEP] Sugar on Edubuntu
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 12:18 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. Would it be such a problem if squeak (and other not-squeaky-clean components of sugar) were in ubuntu restricted or debian restricted? vik ___ Sugar mailing list Sugar@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/sugar
