[IAEP] [sugar] Sugar on Edubuntu
yoshiki at vpri.org
Thu Nov 6 02:55:08 EST 2008
1. The statement Walter quoted (As of this summer, "all of the code
contained in our Squeak Etoys version 4.0 is covered by either
the Apache 2.0 or MIT Licenses.") is correct. Edward quoted the
email I sent around while ago. We have a license-clean Etoys
V. 4.0 developers image.
> 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.
2. Apple fonts has been removed from any newer Squeak-variations,
including Etoys. So, Apple fonts is not an issue.
> Is the issue where squeak was originally licensed under a non-free Apple license and the squeak foundations can't
> locate all of the original contributors to convert it to an mit license?
3. Just looking at "missingSignatories" without looking at actual
code is misleading because their code are alreay removed or
4. We haven't made an RPM or any package from the dev image yet.
Making a RPM doesn't take long, but we just haven't gotten around
testing it enough... Of course, one way to test it is to create
an RPM and have people try. If you say we should, we can
certainly do so from the current v 4.0.
5. So, if the license was the problem, there shouldn't be any
problem for including the latest version of Etoys into such
distros. If the development model is the problem, well,
solutions are potentially implementable, but would take some time
to carray through.
More information about the IAEP