Even though I haven't spoken with Bernie about his rationale for
proposing the upgrade of the license I would like to explain why I
strongly feel that as a member of the SLOBs board and as a
representative of the community I have the duty to back the proposal.
You see GPL is not only a legality
chris wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Apr 22 2011, Chris Ball wrote:
> > I think you've repeatedly ignored Scott's claim that you can't modify
> > COPYING or the source files because that would be *changing* the
> > license, rather than taking advantage of GPLv3 redistribution rights.
> > Can you
Hi,
On Fri, Apr 22 2011, Chris Ball wrote:
> I think you've repeatedly ignored Scott's claim that you can't modify
> COPYING or the source files because that would be *changing* the
> license, rather than taking advantage of GPLv3 redistribution rights.
> Can you ask Brett or someone at the FSF wh
Hi Bernie,
On Fri, Apr 22 2011, Bernie Innocenti wrote:
> You've expressed some valid concerns and I believe I've responded
> satisfactorily to all of them. If not, I'm glad to hear a
> counter-argument from you.
I think you've repeatedly ignored Scott's claim that you can't modify
COPYING or th
Disclaimer: given where I work now, advocating in favor of the GPL will
probably makes me look partisan, but long-time friends like you should
known that these have been my personal opinions for a long time.
On Fri, 2011-04-22 at 10:50 -0400, Martin Langhoff wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 8:00
On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 7:05 PM, Martin Langhoff
wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 12:54 PM, C. Scott Ananian
> wrote:
> > Yes, you seem to be confused Bernie. You can redistribute under a
> > license however you like, usually without explicitly stating it. But
> > if you alter the source files
Don't know if this is related or not, but under the latest nightly
development versions of Sugar (0.92) and Fedora 15 (Linux), I get an error
message with MIDI and this specification:
-+rtmidi=alsa -M hw:1,0
The specification works fine with earlier versions of Sugar and Fedora.
Strangely, Sug
Link to tests on wiki:
http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Community/Distributions/Fedora-SoaS#Fedora-15-Nightly-20110421.22-i686-Live-desktop.iso
===Fedora-15-Nightly-20110421.22-i686-Live-desktop.iso===
*Install sugar-desktop:
: yum install @sugar-desktop sugar-emulator
*sugar-emulator and sugar(from
Hello
My name is Safoura and in my search for a solution to replace the Lego Wedo
software with some thing written by myself, I came across this post. I didn't
know any thing about sugar labs; seems quiet impressive.
I studied the pyhton code a bit but I am not very much familar with python. Do
On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 12:54 PM, C. Scott Ananian wrote:
> Yes, you seem to be confused Bernie. You can redistribute under a
> license however you like, usually without explicitly stating it. But
> if you alter the source files or replace COPYING, you are *changing
> the license*. That is a di
On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 12:33 PM, Bernie Innocenti wrote:
> On Fri, 2011-04-22 at 16:45 +0100, Peter Robinson wrote:
>
>> > We're not retroactively re-licensing existing code.
>>
>> Really? By moving to GPLv3 your removing the ability to use GPLv2
>> which is by definition a re-license of the cod
On Fri, 2011-04-22 at 16:45 +0100, Peter Robinson wrote:
> > We're not retroactively re-licensing existing code.
>
> Really? By moving to GPLv3 your removing the ability to use GPLv2
> which is by definition a re-license of the code.
Not really, this is a common misconception: redistributing co
On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 1:00 AM, Bernie Innocenti wrote:
> 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
On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 10:50 AM, Martin Langhoff
wrote:
> - What's the upside?
>
> - At what point do we say "hey, this has scant upside, and negative
> controversy around it, let's spend our time in productive things
> instead"?
This is the crux of my objection as well. I see Sugar being us
On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 8:00 PM, Bernie Innocenti wrote:
> Authors can express their intentions through a license. If you didn't
> want your code to be redistributed under a later versions of the GPL,
> then why didn't you distribute as GPLv2-only?
On a personal note here... programmers that like
On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 6:18 PM, Bernie Innocenti wrote:
> 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.
Interesting. (Bad timing though -- w
16 matches
Mail list logo
