On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 4:12 AM, Daniel Narvaez <dwnarv...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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.
FWIW, the poll was only taken after a long discussion where we did not reach consensus. > > > 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 Faraone >> Sugar 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 > -- Walter Bender Sugar Labs http://www.sugarlabs.org _______________________________________________ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel