[IAEP] [sugar] Sugar on Edubuntu

[David Farning]

Yoshiki.
I'll forward this information to the Ubuntu Squeak maintainer.

Do you know who I should talk to about requesting that
http://www.squeak.org/SqueakLicense/ be update to reflect this information?

thanks
david

On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 1:55 AM, Yoshiki Ohshima <yoshiki at vpri.org> wrote:

>  Hello,
>
>  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[1] and the squeak foundations can't
> > locate all of the original contributors[2] to convert it to an mit
> license?
> >
> >   http://www.squeak.org/SqueakLicense/
> >   http://netjam.org/squeak/contributors/missingSignatories
>
>   3. Just looking at "missingSignatories" without looking at actual
>     code is misleading because their code are alreay removed or
>     rewritten.
>
>  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.
>
> -- Yoshiki
> _______________________________________________
> Sugar mailing list
> Sugar at lists.laptop.org
> http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/sugar
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/iaep/attachments/20081107/823ed226/attachment.htm