[IAEP] [sugar] Sugar on Edubuntu

[Edward Cherlin]

On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 5:35 PM, David Farning <dfarning at sugarlabs.org> wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 7:18 PM, David Van Assche <dvanassche at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> The problem here is that edubuntu and its packages are in Ubuntu Main,
>> and for sugar to be in there, there must be no non-free software in
>> it, and squeak is not totally free. Apple fonts not being modifiable,
>> iirc. Its pretty much the same policy as debian. Scratch was recently
>> rejected from MOTU for the similar reasons.
>>
>> David Van Assche
>
> Is the issue where squeak was originally licensed under a non-free Apple
> license[1] and the squeak foundations can't locate all of the original
> contributors[2] to convert it to an mit license?
>
> 1. http://www.squeak.org/SqueakLicense/
> 2. http://netjam.org/squeak/contributors/missingSignatories
>
> david

That was the problem. My understanding is that it has very nearly been
dealt with. Yoshiki and Robin will know much more than I.
=====
As mentioned in the leadership discussion minutes from Craig, the
plan now is as follows:

 - Make Squeak version 4.0.  This is based on the 3.11 effort but
   get rid of or rewrite code that are not relicensed and make a
   fully relicensed version relatively conservatively.  Etoys 4.0 is
   now fully relicensed, and we can bring the removal and rewrite
   changesets from that stream.

 - Craig continue to work on the Spoon based system.  It is dubbed
   Squeak 5.0.  (My personal opinion is that because it is fairly
   different, it could have a different name, but...)

BTW, during the Etoys' relicensing effort, I made a little web app
that lets you view *all history* from Squeak V1 to the latest version:

http://tinlizzie.org:8080/seaside/examples/authorship2

I can make a similar page for 3.10 or such, and also give a tool to
check the unlicened code in a particular code base.

 Ken and Mathew, how does it sound?

-- Yoshiki
=====
Robin Norwood
 to fedora-olpc-li.
	
Aug 11
	
Hi,

For the few of you who aren't on the extensive Cc list, we've had a
discussion about the Squeak license with Fedora legal (Tom Callaway)
and VPRI (Kim Rose and others).

To summarize:

o As of this moment, there is probably still some code in Squeak that
has not been properly moved to the MIT license.  (Mostly because the
original contributors can't be found).

o Fedora can't accept code that is in this state.

o Kim Rose says:

"""
My colleagues, Yoshiki Ohshima and Bert Freudenbeg (along with a few
others) have been reviewing all code and our signed Relicensing
Agreements for the past week or so.  I believe they are stripping out
any code that still remains in the image for which we do not have
signed agreements to cover.  I will meet with them upon my return
from vacation week of August 18th to see exactly where we stand.
"""

So, it looks very hopeful that squeak will soon be entirely safe to
include in Fedora, and we'll know more after the 18th.

-RN

--
Robin Norwood
Red Hat, Inc.

"The Sage does nothing, yet nothing remains undone."
-Lao Tzu, Te Tao Ching


-- 
Silent Thunder (默雷/धर्ममेघशब्दगर्ज/دھرممیگھشبدگر ج) is my name
And Children are my nation.
The Cosmos is my dwelling place, The Truth my destination.
http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/User:Mokurai