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 contributions are using
GPLv3.
I checked and it turns out Apache 2.0 license is compatible with GPLv3
(but incompatible with GPLv2):
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#apache2
Regards,
Sebastian
El 07/06/13 19:38, Daniel Narvaez escribió:
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 bring activities on devices where tivoization might be an issue.
On Saturday, 8 June 2013, Daniel Narvaez wrote:
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 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 suggestedlicense for future releases
> ofSugar. This poll will run from right now until Wed Jun 29 2011 at
> midnight UTC-4.
Sorry for the late update; the reporting mechanism for our voting
software temporarily broke.
Summary: the winner was **GNU GPL version 3, or any later version**.
## Results Details ##
55 out of 217 eligible members voted, or a little more than ¼.
The full results of this election ranked the candidates in order of
preference (from most preferred to least preferred):
1. GNU GPL version 3, or any later version
2. GNU GPL version 2, or any later version
3. Don't know or don't care
Each number in the table below shows how many times the candidate on the
left beat the matching candidate on the top. The winner is on the top of
the left column.
v3 v2 DC
v3 -- 34 37
v2 21 -- 42
DC 18 13 --
Based on a sheer count of 1st place votes, v3 received 49% of the vote,
v2 received 29% of the vote, and the apathetic position received the
remaining 22% of the vote.
Full details (and alternative election method calculations) are visible
at the Selectricity page linked in the original voting ticket email.
Thanks,
Luke Faraone
Sugar Labs, Systems
âoe0/00:l...@sugarlabs.org
I: lfaraone onirc.freenode.net <http://irc.freenode.net/>
On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 8:59 PM, Daniel Narvaez
<dwnarv...@gmail.com> wrote:
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?
People that contributed but doesn't seem to be
involved with the project anymore.
Eben Eliason
Marco Pesenti Gritti
Tomeu Vizoso
Still around
Scott Ananian
benzea
erikos
Martin Abente
Walter Bender
godiard
Manuel Quinones
From the git log of the icons dir.
On Saturday, 8 June 2013, Daniel Narvaez wrote:
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 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 concrete problem we could have
with gpl3... My understanding is that you
could not ship an activity based on sugar-web
in the apple store, at least including the lib
locally. I suppose it would be fine if you
loaded it from a server, but then you
need security restrictions if you implement
any kind of system integration.
On Friday, 3 May 2013, 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 probably applies to
the sugar-html libraries too. Feedback
would be very welcome as we are no expert.
---
I spent some time trying to decide which
license is better for the various part of
Agora. It's an hard and important
decision, I'm not a lawyer and not even an
expert but we need to make a call. My
understanding is that a license is better
than nothing.
(L)GPLv2
* Copyleft. Requires all the modifications
to be made freely available.
* Incompatible with Apache. Pretty bad, a
lot of code already licensed that way and
growing fast (especially in the javascript
world).
(L)GPLv3
* Copyleft
* Compatiible with Apache.
* Anti-tivoization clause. Mixed bag,
would it prevent us to run on hardware we
are interested in? One problematic case I
can think of is distributing an activity
through the Apple store. We wouldn't be
able to do that. Though people could still
install the activity as a web app, from
the browser. Maybe that's good enough?
* Latest version. Better wording etc.
Patents protection.
* We can distribute the sugar icons under
LGPLv3, without requiring any relicensing,
because of the "or later" clause.
* My understanding is that if xi-* is
LGPL, proprietary applications could still
use it without making modifications. The
situation is not as clear as for the
traditional linked libraries case but from
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl-java.html
I'd think we are fine.
Apache
* Non copyleft. It would be more friendly
to companies that might want to reuse code
in their products. But is that likely to
happen? Both xi and omega are pretty agora
specific. Still I think it's a good
license to use for more generic bits that
we might develop (I used it for some
python helpers I'm using in eta for example).
* It seems to be the best permissive
license because of the patents protection.
It's the most popular at least.
So I think there two choices basically:
1 Copyleft VS non copyleft. I think
copyleft has advantages and practically no
real disadvantages for eta, xi and omega.
2 GPLv2 VS GPLv3. Compatibility with
Apache would be good (maybe not essential
though? We could still use apache
libraries I would think, just not freely
cut/paste code). Anti-tivoization is
tricky, I honestly can't make strong
points one way or another. While I was
initially sympathetic wi
_______________________________________________
Sugar-devel mailing list
Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
--
Daniel Narvaez
--
Daniel Narvaez
_______________________________________________
Sugar-devel mailing list
Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
_______________________________________________
Sugar-devel mailing list
Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
