[IAEP] [SLOBS] non-free activities on ASLO

[Aleksey Lim]

On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 02:41:28PM -0400, Chris Ball wrote:
> Hi David,
> 
>    > There is a growing ecosystem of non-free activities for the sugar
>    > and the .xo .  Is there an official policy on hosting non-free
>    > activities on activities.sugarlabs.org?
> 
> Yes.  We ratified at a SLOBS meeting that non-free activities (or
> content) should *not* be hosted on ASLO, and attempted to specify
> what we mean by non-free:
> 
> http://meeting.olpcorps.net/sugar-meeting/sugar-meeting.log.20091211_1002.html
> 
> [10:13:24] <cjb> MOTION: adopt http://opensource.org/docs/osd as a set
> of guidelines for what is permitted on ASLO, for both software and
> content, and http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#Good_Licenses's
> opinions on specific licenses where applicable, and always asking the
> SFC for advice when a particular license is under question.
> ...
> [10:16:56] <mchua> seconded
> [10:17:33] <mchua> yea
> [10:17:35] <cjb> yea
> [10:17:42] <SeanDaly> yea
> [10:17:44] <tomeu> aye
> [10:17:47] <walterbender> yea
> [10:17:53] <bernie> yep
> 
>    > I am interested in establishing a 'market-place' for sugar
>    > activities.  It would seem that we have three choises: 1. We can
>    > work to incorporate it into the existing also instance.  Limited
>    > firewall between commercial and non-commercial portions of the
>    > project.  2. We can establish a second instance of aslo called
>    > marketplace.sl.org - This establishes a firewall between the
>    > non-commercial and non-commercial parts of the project. It also
>    > leverages and builds up the Sugar name.  3. I, or others, can
>    > establish third party markets independent of activities.sl.org.
> 
> If we continue with the policy that was voted on, I think it would be
> important not to have anything inside .sugarlabs.org endorse or offer
> non-free activities, which would suggest choice 3 in your list above.

Heh, I guess it was misunderstanding from my side, my concern was about
considering non-FOSS content on reviewing activities to be public (this
question is only one for future Editors Policy [1], in my mind it would
be better to find out a way to host binary activities and then accept
Editors Policy), everyone is free to initial publish any content on ASLO
and there is no special workflows on AMO to handle queue of any incoming
activities.

In my mind it is not obvious question should editors scan all uploaded
activities (not only nominated to be public), since, as was already said
in devel@ thread, most of uploaded activities will be not worth taking a
notice and won't be nominated to be public.

But licensing question could be different in this case. On every
uploading to ASLO, uploader should mention what licence his activity is
using, there is a list and "Other" field to type any text. ASLO could
auto check if licence confirms FOSS and reject uploading form beginning.
It was another option in proposed Policy[2].

In my mind licensing issue wasn't so hot (since I was considering it
from reviewing nominated to the public activities, there was only one
such activity) in comparing w/ binary based activities. But if people
think it is important, Policy[1] could be nominated (I guess it require
some tweaks, I didn't it since my major concern was fixing binaries
issue and only after that accept policy) for accepting.

[1] http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Activity_Library/Editors/Policy
[2] http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Activity_Library/Editors/Policy#ASLO_auto_checking

-- 
Aleksey