On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 11:15 PM, Yamandu Ploskonka wrote:
>
>
> On 04/20/2011 08:05 PM, Walter Bender wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 8:52 PM, Yamandu Ploskonka
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> AFAIK (please correct me) Uruguay is not providing code, thus in
>>> violation
>>> of GNU license, and this situ
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
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
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 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, 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
6 matches
Mail list logo
