On 18 June 2013 18:19, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
> Daniel Narvaez wrote at 14:53 (EDT) on Monday:
> > I made a list of contributors. I'm not sure what's the best way to
> > collect permission though. For example, should we email the
> > contributors keeping a list in cc so that we have a public reco
Daniel Narvaez wrote at 14:53 (EDT) on Monday:
> I made a list of contributors. I'm not sure what's the best way to
> collect permission though. For example, should we email the
> contributors keeping a list in cc so that we have a public record?
You don't necessarily need a public record. It's r
On 12 June 2013 13:21, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
> Walter Bender wrote at 09:52 (EDT) on Tuesday:
> > For the Javascipt/HTML5 work, we are going to use Apache and would
> > like to fold in the artwork that is currently LGPL. So presumably a
> > second license is required. Any protocol for this that
On 13 June 2013 13:00, Simon Schampijer wrote:
> In our case, if we make our libraries licensed under Apache 2
> an activity author could use Apache 2 or GPL3 for his activity but not
> GPL2, correct?
>
That's my understanding yeah.
___
Sugar-devel mai
On 06/13/2013 11:29 AM, Daniel Narvaez wrote:
On 13 June 2013 11:26, Simon Schampijer wrote:
On 06/13/2013 01:32 AM, Manuel Quiñones wrote:
2013/6/7 Daniel Narvaez :
I'm still undecided really but since it's important to make a call soon,
my
vote goes for Apache, both for sugar-web and for
On 13 June 2013 11:26, Simon Schampijer wrote:
> On 06/13/2013 01:32 AM, Manuel Quiñones wrote:
>
>> 2013/6/7 Daniel Narvaez :
>>
>>> I'm still undecided really but since it's important to make a call soon,
>>> my
>>> vote goes for Apache, both for sugar-web and for activities we develop.
>>>
>>
On 06/13/2013 01:32 AM, Manuel Quiñones wrote:
2013/6/7 Daniel Narvaez :
I'm still undecided really but since it's important to make a call soon, my
vote goes for Apache, both for sugar-web and for activities we develop.
I'm far from expert on licenses, but given Daniel Narvaez description,
I
2013/6/7 Daniel Narvaez :
> I'm still undecided really but since it's important to make a call soon, my
> vote goes for Apache, both for sugar-web and for activities we develop.
I'm far from expert on licenses, but given Daniel Narvaez description,
I vote for Apache too.
--
.. manuq ..
__
On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 9:41 AM, Bradley M. Kuhn
wrote:
>> On 10 June 2013 18:17, Walter Bender wrote:
>>> I am guessing it is LGPLv2 only. The license is in the COPYING
>>> file,
>>> not in each SVG.
>>
>>> https://github.com/sugarlabs/sugar-artwork/blob/master/COPYING
>
> Daniel Narvaez wrote a
On 10 June 2013 18:27, Daniel Narvaez wrote:
> Does it actually matter here though? We are talking of relicensing to
> Apache now, not gpl3.
>
Oh I see that Walter had brought up the relicensing to gplv3 which is sort
of a separate issue. Sorry for the confusion.
On 10 June 2013 18:17, Walter Bender wrote:
>
> I am guessing it is LGPLv2 only. The license is in the COPYING file,
> not in each SVG.
>
> https://github.com/sugarlabs/sugar-artwork/blob/master/COPYING
>
>
Is the "or later" something that goes in the per file headers only (vs the
COPYING file)?
On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 12:05 PM, Bradley M. Kuhn
wrote:
> Walter Bender wrote at 07:09 (EDT) on Saturday:
>> (1) We have some of the core Sugar code still under LGPLv2 (e.g.,
>> sugar-artwork) which we would like to change to LGPLv3. (2) We would
>> like to add a second (Apache) license to this
On 8 June 2013 13:09, Walter Bender wrote:
> Let me sum up where I think we are and what questions we have for
> Tony/Bradley at SFC:
>
> (1) We have some of the core Sugar code still under LGPLv2 (e.g.,
> sugar-artwork) which we would like to change to LGPLv3.
> (2) We would like to add a second
Let me sum up where I think we are and what questions we have for
Tony/Bradley at SFC:
(1) We have some of the core Sugar code still under LGPLv2 (e.g.,
sugar-artwork) which we would like to change to LGPLv3.
(2) We would like to add a second (Apache) license to this same code.
s there a specific
On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 4:12 AM, Daniel Narvaez wrote:
> Thanks for clarifying Sebastian. I prefer discussions to polls to make
> decisions (and a poll would be not binding anyway) but I'm not against a
> poll if people think it's necessary.
FWIW, the poll was only taken after a long discussion wh
Cool. Maybe since you are talking to the SFC already you could ask how to
get the contributors permission? I wonder if the mailing list should be
cced for example, so that we get a record of it.
On Saturday, 8 June 2013, Walter Bender wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 7:58 PM, Daniel Narvaez
> >
Thanks for clarifying Sebastian. I prefer discussions to polls to
make decisions (and a poll would be not binding anyway) but I'm not against
a poll if people think it's necessary.
On Saturday, 8 June 2013, Sebastian Silva wrote:
> Hi,
> The poll winner was GPLv3 but the poll was "non-binding",
Hi,
The poll winner was GPLv3 but the poll was "non-binding", i.e. the
community can't force contributors to switch licenses and nobody sent a
patch to change license notices.
I and other members of the community think it's important to support
freedom by using copyleft, therefore most of our
On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 7:58 PM, Daniel Narvaez wrote:
> Ugh one issue with Apache is that I think we would need to get permission to
> relicense the svg icons under apache from all the people that contributed to
> them. Do you think that will be possible?
I am happy to reach out to Marco, Tomeu a
I'm actually a bit confused about the result of the one year ago
discussion. I thought we decided to stay with gplv2 but the poll winner
seems to be gplv3?
Anyway even on gplv3 I think the situation is pretty different if nothing
else because one of major goals of the web activities work is to bri
Yes I think it's very different because using GPLv2 would mean we can't use
Apache licensed libraries, which are a big percentage of available js
libraries.
On Saturday, 8 June 2013, Gonzalo Odiard wrote:
> We already had this discussion two years ago,
> is the situation with the javascript activ
We already had this discussion two years ago,
is the situation with the javascript activities different to need
start this discussion again?
Gonzalo
On 06/14/2011 05:42 PM, Luke Faraone wrote:
> This is a vote to determine the suggested license for future releases
> of Sugar. This poll will run f
Well permission to double license really.
On Saturday, 8 June 2013, Daniel Narvaez wrote:
> Ugh one issue with Apache is that I think we would need to get permission
> to relicense the svg icons under apache from all the people that
> contributed to them. Do you think that will be possible?
>
> P
Ugh one issue with Apache is that I think we would need to get permission
to relicense the svg icons under apache from all the people that
contributed to them. Do you think that will be possible?
People that contributed but doesn't seem to be involved with the project
anymore.
Eben Eliason
Marco
I'm still undecided really but since it's important to make a call soon, my
vote goes for Apache, both for sugar-web and for activities we develop.
On Saturday, 8 June 2013, Daniel Narvaez wrote:
> We really need to make a call here, we start to have a sizeable amount of
> code and the first rele
We really need to make a call here, we start to have a sizeable amount of
code and the first release is near. I tend to think gplv2 is not an option
because of the apache incompatibility. I would go for Apache if we want to
avoid issues with anti-tivoization, otherwise gplv3.
To point out a concre
On 3 May 2013 16:15, Daniel Narvaez wrote:
> Hello,
>
> we need to decide how to license the new javascript libraries. I am mostly
> clueless about the topic and I'm honestly scared to start this thread,
> please be gentle :)
>
> Following is the rationale I came up with for Agora. I think it pro
Hello,
we need to decide how to license the new javascript libraries. I am mostly
clueless about the topic and I'm honestly scared to start this thread,
please be gentle :)
Following is the rationale I came up with for Agora. I think it probably
applies to the sugar-html libraries too. Feedback w
28 matches
Mail list logo
