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", 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 suggested license for future releases > > of Sugar. 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 FaraoneSugar Labs, Systems > ✉: l...@sugarlabs.org > I: lfaraone on 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 > > -- Daniel Narvaez
_______________________________________________ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel