[IAEP] GPL non-compliance, was Re: [SLOBS] GPLv3

[Yamandu Ploskonka]

On 04/20/2011 08:05 PM, Walter Bender wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 8:52 PM, Yamandu Ploskonka<yamaplos at gmail.com>  wrote:
>> AFAIK (please correct me) Uruguay is not providing code, thus in violation
>> of GNU license, and this situation has not been solved after several years.
> This is a serious accusation. Can you please provide some backup?
> Specific to Sugar?

If it is serious, why hasn't it been *solved* before?
2009:

http://lists.laptop.org/pipermail/olpc-sur/2009-August/004247.html

2010:
http://www.mail-archive.com/sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org/msg14915.html



Walter, I am too dumb to know the full ins and outs of this.  I also have been advised that I should not mess with this because (as I understood it) there's some sort of insider arrangement I do not know and clearly I am not supposed to know, but time passes and the matter is not solved.
You know this is no new issue, so I find it really out of place (and it hurts a bit) that I am pointed out like the "serious accuser", eh?

BTW, if the "accusation" were true, who should write that cease-and-desist letter to Ceibal?

Now, if this is irrelevant to Sugar's GPL, I apologize again, pull down my flag and take my spanking like a man.

IMHO, if we are to learn anything from the current 3 cups of tea thing, 
it is that it works to all's benefit to sort these things out in the open.