On Apr 26, 2011, at 6:26 PM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> On 11-04-26 at 04:28pm, John Watlington wrote:
>>
>> As Martin says, GPL v3 moves from requiring that modifications be
>> shared, to telling you what you can and cannot do with the code.
>
> Did Martin really acknowledge that XOs - if cons
http://www.fossed.com
I'm writing to let you know that you deserve great professional development.
It's simple as that.
Now...a little more... If you've been to FOSSed you have some idea of what
I'm talking about. Some conferences are great "dog and pony" shows where
you get a small sampling
:-)
In that case I stand down and shut up - then I do not understand GPLv3
well enough to argue about it!
- Jonas
apparently very few people do :-)
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://list
On 11-04-26 at 04:28pm, John Watlington wrote:
>
> On Apr 26, 2011, at 4:16 PM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
>
> > On 11-04-26 at 03:37pm, John Watlington wrote:
> >>
> >> On Apr 26, 2011, at 1:51 PM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> >>> Tivoization - as I understand it - is when the hardware locks the
> >
On 04/26/2011 01:32 PM, Sean DALY wrote:
Thanks Mel, for those of us not used to "filing tickets" could you
point us to instructions for its use? Does an account need to be
opened?
Sure - http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/BugSquad/Bug_Report (it's for code
bugs, but you make the same kind of ticket
Sigh.
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 4:42 PM, Yamaplos . wrote:
> Guys, with all due respect, this is reaching a level of silly befuddlement.
>
> Maybe all source IS available somewhere somehow, thus GPL's honor is
> safe, and at least technically there is compliance, and saying it
> ain't so is untrue.
Hi Walter,
On 26 Apr 2011, at 20:14, Walter Bender wrote:
> I'd love to channel the energy of this debate into writing some code to
> expand the
> utility of View Source to (a) include all of Sugar, not just the Sugar
> activities; and (b) make it possible from View Source to make
> modificatio
Guys, with all due respect, this is reaching a level of silly befuddlement.
Maybe all source IS available somewhere somehow, thus GPL's honor is
safe, and at least technically there is compliance, and saying it
ain't so is untrue.
Which is not worth a "vintén", since such so called "availability"
On Apr 26, 2011, at 4:16 PM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> On 11-04-26 at 03:37pm, John Watlington wrote:
>>
>> On Apr 26, 2011, at 1:51 PM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
>>
>>> How is that a violation of GPL license?
>>>
>>> I believe they do have full access to all source code - just is not
>>> allow
On 11-04-26 at 03:37pm, John Watlington wrote:
>
> On Apr 26, 2011, at 1:51 PM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
>
> > How is that a violation of GPL license?
> >
> > I believe they do have full access to all source code - just is not
> > allowed to execute it (conveniently) on the hardware it resides o
On Tuesday, April 26, 2011 04:14:29 pm Walter Bender wrote:
> I'd love to channel the energy of this debate into writing some code to
expand the utility of View Source to (a) include all of Sugar, not just the
Sugar activities; and (b) make it possible from View Source to make
modifications that
On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 12:17 AM, Bernie Innocenti wrote:
> By updating to the GPLv3, we make a clear political statement that
> commercial usage is ok, but our software must always remain free for
> users to use, study, share *and* modify.
1) I'm not interested in using Sugar code to make politi
On Sat, Apr 23, 2011 at 7:39 AM, Sean DALY wrote:
> http://fsfe.org/projects/gplv3/europe-gplv3-conference.en.html
> http://fsfe.org/projects/gplv3/barcelona-rms-transcript.en.html
>
> see question 6b from this Q&A from the 3rd International GPLv3
> Conference (Barcelona, June 22-23, 2006):
>
> **
On Apr 26, 2011, at 1:51 PM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> How is that a violation of GPL license?
>
> I believe they do have full access to all source code - just is not
> allowed to execute it (conveniently) on the hardware it resides on.
Walter is correct that kids in Uruguay should be able to
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 2:57 PM, Gabriel Eirea wrote:
> 2011/4/26 Walter Bender :
>> On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 2:19 PM, Gabriel Eirea wrote:
>>> 2011/4/26 Walter Bender :
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 1:54 PM, wrote:
>>Walter Bender wrote:
>>I believe that root access is being provided rou
2011/4/26 Walter Bender :
> On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 2:19 PM, Gabriel Eirea wrote:
>> 2011/4/26 Walter Bender :
>>> On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 1:54 PM, wrote:
>Walter Bender wrote:
>I believe that root access is being provided routinely as part of the
> current OS upgrade.
-
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 2:19 PM, Gabriel Eirea wrote:
> 2011/4/26 Walter Bender :
>> On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 1:54 PM, wrote:
Walter Bender wrote:
I believe that root access is being provided routinely as part of the
current OS upgrade.
>>> ---
2011/4/26 Walter Bender :
> On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 1:54 PM, wrote:
>>>Walter Bender wrote:
>>>I believe that root access is being provided routinely as part of the
>>> current OS upgrade.
>> -
On 11-04-26 at 02:53pm, nanon...@mediagala.com wrote:
> //>Martin Langhoff wrote:
> >..Well, that is not correct. You *can* modify Sugar and run your
> modified version without root.
> /
>
>
> Sorry, but _*Thi
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 1:54 PM, wrote:
>>Walter Bender wrote:
>>I believe that root access is being provided routinely as part of the
>> current OS upgrade.
> --
>
>
> No, The "plan Ceibal" do
/>Walter Bender wrote:
>I believe that root access is being provided routinely as part of the
current OS upgrade.
--/
No, The "plan Ceibal" don't give the root access neither a developer key
/>Bernie Innocenti wrote:
>...The new OS is based on Dextrose 1 ... This allows Uruguay to give root
> access to children without compromising the security system.
/
This is not true.
The new OS in Uruguay don't
/>Martin Langhoff wrote:
>..Yes, but as Walter indicates, I understand it is allowed in newer OSs.
/
No. In URuguay It is not allowed to have root access (or a developer
key) with the new OS Release (dextro
On 11-04-26 at 02:40pm, nanon...@mediagala.com wrote:
>>Walter Bender wrote:
>>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?
> I can Answer both questions:
>
>
> YES AND YES.
>
> The children
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 1:40 PM, wrote:
>>Walter Bender wrote:
>>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?
>>--
>
>
/>Walter Bender wrote:
>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?
>--/
I can Answer both questions:
YES AND YES.
Thanks Mel, for those of us not used to "filing tickets" could you
point us to instructions for its use? Does an account need to be
opened?
Rather than "first come first served" I would suggest a budget policy.
Could you remind us where the revenues/disbursements balance sheet is?
I believe it wo
meant to Reply-All
-walter
-- Forwarded message --
From: Walter Bender
Date: Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 1:24 PM
Subject: Re: [Sugar-devel] [SLOBS] GPL non compliance?
To: Bernie Innocenti
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 12:57 PM, Bernie Innocenti wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-04-26 at 10:26 -0400
Hi Sugar folks,
[cutting off a few recipients I knwo is subscribed to lists]
On 11-04-26 at 12:57pm, Bernie Innocenti wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-04-26 at 10:26 -0400, Martin Langhoff wrote:
>
> > > useless because children can install absolutely no additional
> > > software packages (they can't do "
We've got 3 outstanding tickets on
http://bugs.sugarlabs.org/query?status=accepted&status=assigned&status=closed&status=new&status=reopened&component=fundingrequest&order=priority&col=id&col=summary&col=component&col=status&col=type&col=priority&col=milestone
- time to discuss.
Please reply to
We've got 3 outstanding tickets on
http://bugs.sugarlabs.org/query?status=accepted&status=assigned&status=closed&status=new&status=reopened&component=fundingrequest&order=priority&col=id&col=summary&col=component&col=status&col=type&col=priority&col=milestone
- time to discuss.
Please reply to
On Tue, 2011-04-26 at 10:26 -0400, Martin Langhoff wrote:
> > useless because children can install absolutely no additional software
> > packages (they can't do "yum install").
>
> Um - again you _can_ install sw in your homedir. Not as practical but
> possible.
It would be quite painful for us
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 12:22 PM, roberto wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 6:38 PM, Walter Bender
> wrote:
>> ==Sugar Digest==
>>
>>
>> 5. Cynthia Solomon has put her excellent book, co-authored by Margaret
>> Minsky and Brian Harvey, on Logo programming, ''LogoWorks: Challenging
>> Programs in
On Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 6:38 PM, Walter Bender wrote:
> ==Sugar Digest==
>
>
> 5. Cynthia Solomon has put her excellent book, co-authored by Margaret
> Minsky and Brian Harvey, on Logo programming, ''LogoWorks: Challenging
> Programs in Logo'', on line (See http://logoworks.wikispaces.com/).
> The
in a purely hypothetical scenario (TM), what if the possible violator
doesn't care? Or because of the complexity of the matter, that no
prosecution is ever likely - especially in his own country, etc?
On 04/26/2011 09:09 AM, Walter Bender wrote:
To me, one of the more compelling arguments
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 8:10 AM, Gabriel Eirea wrote:
> Fact 1: in Plan Ceibal the XO 1.0 and XO 1.5-HS don't provide access
> to root.
Yes, but as Walter indicates, I understand it is allowed in newer OSs.
In any case I am aware of efforts to make it available.
> This means that Sugar can't be
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 10:09 AM, Walter Bender wrote:
> To me, one of the more compelling arguments for considering GPLv3 is
> "When the Rules Are Broken: A Smooth Path to Compliance".
Interesting! I hadn't thought it'd be so awkward, but if one is to be
100% formal, you need to do something lik
To me, one of the more compelling arguments for considering GPLv3 is
"When the Rules Are Broken: A Smooth Path to Compliance". We have been
engaged of late in a parallel discussion regarding a possible
violation of the Sugar GPLv2. If this were actually to be the case,
the violator will have to go
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 8:10 AM, Gabriel Eirea 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 thes
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 f
Hi all,
browsing through Association of Learning Technology's current newsletter
I stumbled across an article called "Glow: the world’s first national
intranet and online community for education"
(http://newsletter.alt.ac.uk/rrm1o11lb6j).
Glow is an online community platform which is apparently w
On 24.04.2011, at 10:44, Peter Robinson wrote:
> Hi Caryl,
>
> On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 5:17 PM, Caryl Bigenho wrote:
>> Hi All
>> Is there a link that tells what is included (Sugar Activities, Gnome(?))
>> etc. on each build of SoaS? I poked around a bit on the Sugar Labs wiki,
>> but coul
42 matches
Mail list logo
