Re: [Sugar-devel] licensing question

Hi, D. Joe Sugar users should not need to do any of this. For some reason, the developers decided that somehow the installed activity should be git init. The setup.py complains if the master is not a git repository (as it is when downloaded as a zip). While this is not a problem for an

Re: [Sugar-devel] licensing question

Thanks for this. ASLO is our access to a rich library of Sugar activities. It has and continues to work well. Walter's recent post of Turtle Blocks version 218 is exemplary of the proper process and that it works. The problem with ASLO is neglect of the actvities. Walter initiated a move of

Re: [Sugar-devel] licensing question

G'day Alex, Sorry if you saw insults. No, I would not remove link from Sugar Labs master branch of Browse. I would remove from my fork, based on Ubuntu 18.04. Tony's spreadsheets show which activities work, but ASLO presents non-working activities to users of Ubuntu 18.04 systems. It is a

Re: [Sugar-devel] licensing question

On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 11:52:31AM +, D. Joe wrote: > [...] > Then > > git clone https://example.com/some/path > > at this point, what's done depends on the package in question, but it's > entirely possible to launch an activity from that directory, or to install it > by copying it into

Re: [Sugar-devel] licensing question

Folks, These attitudes are totally unhelpful, and I urge you to drop it, stop hurling insults. To be honest, I think both of you have valid points, and for the time being, I am not a fan of shutting down the legacy ASLO, until we have data that it's _really_ not being used. Removing the link

Re: [Sugar-devel] licensing question

On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 8:11 AM D. Joe wrote: > On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 07:25:25AM +0200, Bastien wrote: > > > IANAL but I seriously doubt that "porting" an idea from one language > > to another language counts as a derivative work. That would be very > > bad for the

Re: [Sugar-devel] licensing question

On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 07:25:25AM +0200, Bastien wrote: > IANAL but I seriously doubt that "porting" an idea from one language > to another language counts as a derivative work. That would be very > bad for the whole free software world. Every FLOSS clone out there > is porting ideas from a

Re: [Sugar-devel] licensing question

On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 02:27:59PM +0800, Tony Anderson wrote: [personal calumny and squabbling elided] > The only way Sugar users can access activities not already installed > is by ASLO (unless we have some really carefully hidden source). Open the Terminal activity if not yet installed,

Re: [Sugar-devel] licensing question

James Cameron's devotion to alternate facts is what is amusing (actually sad). The only way Sugar users can access activities not already installed is by ASLO (unless we have some really carefully hidden source). Tony On Thursday, 24 May, 2018 08:54 AM, James Cameron wrote: Tony's insistence

Re: [Sugar-devel] licensing question

Hi Walter, yes, there are two questions, the one regarding TurtleBlocks JS and the other about whether porting from one language to another is to be considered as a "derivative work". The issue of artworks having been copied verbatim is different from the last one: for what I know, the upstream

Re: [Sugar-devel] licensing question

On Wed, May 23, 2018, 11:28 PM James Cameron wrote: > On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 11:23:24PM -0400, Dave Crossland wrote: > > > > On Wed, May 23, 2018, 8:54 PM James Cameron <[1]qu...@laptop.org> wrote: > > > > If the source license is GPLv3+, then anyone can relicense as

Re: [Sugar-devel] licensing question

On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 11:23:24PM -0400, Dave Crossland wrote: > > On Wed, May 23, 2018, 8:54 PM James Cameron <[1]qu...@laptop.org> wrote: > > If the source license is GPLv3+, then anyone can relicense as Apache > 2.0. > > N :) > > This is ABSOLUTELY false.  > > If the

Re: [Sugar-devel] licensing question

On Wed, May 23, 2018, 8:54 PM James Cameron wrote: > > If the source license is GPLv3+, then anyone can relicense as Apache > 2.0. > N :) > This is ABSOLUTELY false. If the source license is GPLv3+, then anyone can add new code that combines with the GPLv3(+) code

Re: [Sugar-devel] licensing question

Copyright on the source code of these activities is held by their original authors, and not by Sugar Labs. The ASLO process is a distribution of software by Sugar Labs, and the licenses are in the source code bundles. It makes no real difference what was entered into ASLO as metadata, what

Re: [Sugar-devel] licensing question

On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 8:03 PM Tony Anderson wrote: > The bulk of the Sugar Activities were contributed through the ASLO > process. This process assumes that the contributor is the copyright-holder. > The contributor was asked to specify a license. Unfortunately that >

Re: [Sugar-devel] licensing question

The bulk of the Sugar Activities were contributed through the ASLO process. This process assumes that the contributor is the copyright-holder. The contributor was asked to specify a license. Unfortunately that selection is not displayed on ASLO. Therefore, it is likely that the license clause

Re: [Sugar-devel] licensing question

Thank you! On Wed, May 23, 2018, 7:03 PM Adam Holt wrote: > On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 6:41 PM, Walter Bender > wrote: > >> We are struggling with a licensing question [1] and were hoping that the >> SFC might be able to advise us. Can you please reach

Re: [Sugar-devel] licensing question

On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 6:41 PM, Walter Bender wrote: > We are struggling with a licensing question [1] and were hoping that the > SFC might be able to advise us. Can you please reach out to them in your > role as liaison? > I've emailed Karen Sandler (SFConservancy)

[Sugar-devel] licensing question

We are struggling with a licensing question [1] and were hoping that the SFC might be able to advise us. Can you please reach out to them in your role as liaison? thx -walter [1] https://github.com/llaske/sugarizer/issues/48 -- Walter Bender Sugar Labs http://www.sugarlabs.org