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 > <dwnarv...@gmail.com<javascript:;>> > 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 and Eben. > > -walter > > > > 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 basical> > _______________________________________________ > > Sugar-devel mailing list > > Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org <javascript:;> > > http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel > > > > > > -- > Walter Bender > Sugar Labs > http://www.sugarlabs.org > -- Daniel Narvaez
_______________________________________________ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
