On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 8:00 PM, Bernie Innocenti wrote:
>> (Ironically, moving to GPLv3 is taking freedoms *away* from users of
>> Sugar).
>
> Which freedoms are being taken away from the users of Sugar?
You are taking away the right to distribute Sugar under the GPLv2.
--scott
--
( htt
On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 8:00 PM, Bernie Innocenti wrote:
> Isn't this exactly what I wrote?
No, you wrote:
Q: How is the actual license change done?
A: We need to replace the COPYING file in the source code and update the
headers of all source files. This operation can easily be automated.
whic
On Thu, 2011-04-21 at 18:47 -0400, C. Scott Ananian wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 6:18 PM, Bernie Innocenti
> wrote:
> > Q: Do we need to ask the permission of all copyright holders?
> > A: No, we'll take advantage of the "or any later version" clause in the
> > current license. We're not ret
On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 6:18 PM, Bernie Innocenti wrote:
> Q: Do we need to ask the permission of all copyright holders?
> A: No, we'll take advantage of the "or any later version" clause in the
> current license. We're not retroactively re-licensing existing code.
This isn't actually true. You
The oversight board is considering a motion to upgrade the license of
Sugar from "GPLv2 or later" to "GPLv3 or later". Before proceeding to a
vote, we'd like to request feedback from the community. In particular,
we'd like to know how this change might affect you as a Sugar end-user,
distributor, c
