[Its.an.education.project] Manifest

[Bert Freudenberg]

On 04.05.2008, at 12:42, Edward Cherlin wrote:

> On Sun, May 4, 2008 at 2:22 AM, Bernie Innocenti  
> <bernie at codewiz.org> wrote:
>> Martin Langhoff wrote:
>>> On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 3:13 AM, Bernie Innocenti <bernie at codewiz.org 
>>> > wrote:
>>>> So when we announce what we are up to, we can say "we, $NAME
>>>> want to do $MISSION".
>>>
>>> Perhaps the Debian Social Contract is a good model (structure and
>>> style-wise). In a sense, NN is turning his back on OLPC's perceived
>>> social contract. The DSC was written as an answer to the perceived
>>> risk that RH would do exactly that.
>>>
>>> (You've probably been thinking of the DSC already ;-) )
>>
>> We should adopt the DSC verbatim with this patch:
>>
>>  s/Debian/Sugar Foundation/
>>
>> Anybody opposed?
>
> I just now took a look. It will take more work than that. Consider
>
> "We acknowledge that some of our users require the use of works that
> do not conform to the Debian Free Software Guidelines. We have created
> "contrib" and "non-free" areas in our archive for these works. The
> packages in these areas are not part of the Debian system, although
> they have been configured for use with Debian."
>
> Are we going to clone the Debian archive structure? Wil we accept
> non-free software into Sugar?
>
> Also, do we consider the BSD license to be sufficiently free? I don't.
> I agree with the OLPC insistence on GPL. But I'm willing to listen to
> reasons supporting a contrary opinion.


I see no reason to be more strict than DFSG. And OLPC did not insist  
on GPL, but on Free Software. For example, Etoys is licensed under  
Apache2.0/MIT. The Browse activity is based on xulrunner which is  
under MPL. Etc. pp.

- Bert -