On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 10:42 AM, Samuel Greenfeld <[email protected]> wrote: > There is some debate to that on various mailing lists. > > Some of the support libraries used are known to be be LGPL or GPL based, but > in the case of one GPL program (gpsbabel) is known to be isolated as a > seperate executable. Other items like Qt potentially could have be licensed > via alternative means. > > The EULA at http://www.google.com/earth/download/ge/agree.html forbids > redistribution, so the entire package might not be GPL'd. > > Someone would have to contact Google to figure out what's going on.
Bradley at the SFC agreed to look into it for us. -walter > > > On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 10:25 AM, Walter Bender <[email protected]> > wrote: >> >> On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 10:15 AM, Peter Robinson <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 1:54 PM, Walter Bender <[email protected]> >> > wrote: >> >> On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 6:20 AM, Peter Robinson <[email protected]> >> >> wrote: >> >>> Are we really allowed to use the name "google earth"? >> >> >> >> Good question. Not sure. We should probably choose a Sugar-ized verb >> >> name anyway. >> > >> > And looking at the ASLO page it states that its GPLv2. I very much >> > doubt that to be the case! >> >> I am pretty sure it is GPL. The map data is not, but the software is. >> >> -walter >> >> > >> > Peter >> > >> >> >> >> -- >> Walter Bender >> Sugar Labs >> http://www.sugarlabs.org >> _______________________________________________ >> Sugar-devel mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel > > -- Walter Bender Sugar Labs http://www.sugarlabs.org _______________________________________________ Sugar-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
