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

Walter Bender walter.bender at gmail.com
Thu Apr 21 07:05:50 EDT 2011

On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 11:15 PM, Yamandu Ploskonka <yamaplos at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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?

There has not been any accusation prior to yours that Ceibal was
violating the GPL in regard to Sugar.

> 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?

We have been as a community working on the general issue of getting
machines 'unlocked' in Uruguay, as as Bernie points out, we have
apparently succeeded. Your serious accusation about Sugar was new and
was a bit out of the blue. And your proposed remedies a bit extreme.
And you presented no new evidence. I don't think you were treated
unfairly. You were given thoughtful responses from the community as to
why they think you are incorrect in this instance. I am not sure what
else you could have expected in the case that you were wrong.

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

I had spoken to the FSF about this (and the SFLC) and they both had
recommended the path we took: work with Ceibal to remedy the

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

As far as I know, it is irrelevant to Sugar's GPL. Which is why I
asked you to explain to the community why you thought otherwise.

> 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.

Where are we not being open?



Walter Bender
Sugar Labs

More information about the IAEP mailing list