[IAEP] GPL non-compliance, was Re: [SLOBS] GPLv3
yamaplos at gmail.com
Wed Apr 20 20:52:28 EDT 2011
AFAIK (please correct me) Uruguay is not providing code, thus in
violation of GNU license, and this situation has not been solved after
With GPL 3 will the Uruguay security code be considered a System Library
and thus exempt from providing code? That might be an elegant way out
from what I believe has been their systematic non-compliance in this
respect, and maybe get them to open the rest (which is silly, as the
machines would still be blocked...)
BTW, and regarding that, what's the point of having a license if such
clear violation just go like that forever? we all know that the desire
that kids would do stuff with source just hasn't happened so much (I
agree with Martin there), but nevertheless it is common knowledge that I
have not been the only one that has been given the "oso" by Ceibal...
And requests from real potential developers are apparently not going
anywhere, to the point that Walter had to take a liberated XO to a UY
kid for that purpose.
if enforcing the license is not possible, then I respectfully submit
that this meeting agree that Sugar be distributed as Public Domain, so
at least we do not have the appearance of some limits when those are not
to be enforced, or something that works. BTW, I believe that there is
an obligation by right-holders to at least attempt to enforce their
rights, and if they do not, it can legally be assumed they have none. I
am no expert but took some training in this respect a while back.
And no, saying that this is being taken care of will not work anymore,
Martin. (unless actually it has been solved, in which case hip hip
hooray and my apologies).
On 04/20/2011 05:55 PM, Walter Bender wrote:
> If you have time before tomorrow's meeting, please take a look at
More information about the IAEP