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

[Gabriel Eirea]

2011/4/26 Walter Bender <walter.bender at gmail.com>:
> On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 2:19 PM, Gabriel Eirea <geirea at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 2011/4/26 Walter Bender <walter.bender at gmail.com>:
>>> On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 1:54 PM,  <nanonano at mediagala.com> wrote:
>>>>>Walter Bender wrote:
>>>>>I believe that root access is being provided routinely as part of the
>>>>> current OS upgrade.
>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No, The "plan Ceibal" don't give the root access neither a developer key for
>>>> programmers, with the new OS upgrade.
>>>
>>> This is new information and if true, quite regrettable. However, I am
>>> still unclear in regard to the implications to Sugar itself. You do
>>> not need root access to build and run Sugar in $HOME. Have they
>>> somehow disabled that ability? How?
>>
>> Actually, Walter, new information would have been otherwise.
>>
>> Of course they don't prevent the user from building the sources and
>> installing them in $HOME. This may be used by a competent lawyer to
>> prove that the GPL is not violated, and he may or may not have
>> success, but please don't pretend it is not a big issue. For all
>> practical purposes children in Uruguay can't modify Sugar and they
>> can't install new applications in Gnome.
>
> Gabriel,
>
> Please don't put words in my mouth and please don't suggest that I am
> trying to defend a policy of making it difficult for the children to
> modify the code on their laptops. I have been pressing hard for root
> access in .uy for a very long time and I am very disappoint to hear --
> just today -- that it will continue to be denied.
>
> But that is not the question on the table, Sugar Labs has an
> obligation to ensure that there is not a violation of its license and
> I have yet to see evidence that there is such a violation. Alas, it is
> exactly the lawyers we need to satisfy, so please don't condemn me for
> being particular about the details.

Walter, I apologize if you felt attacked by my words, it was not my
intention. Throughout this thread, and a few other previous threads on
the topic, you and others have pointed out obscure methods for doing
this or that, as if they would be of use for anybody else other than a
defendents attorney. It is frustrating.

Now, what I learn from this thread is that, since you can build sugar
from sources (assuming you can, which probably nobody ever tried in
Ceibal's XO), and install it in $HOME, then there is no violation of
Sugar's license.

It is probably not the case for many packages in Fedora and it
certainly doesn't help much the children, but if this is the
conclusion of the discussion, I would like to know if a FSF lawyer,
for example, agrees with it.

Regards,

Gabriel


>
> regards.
>
> -walter
>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Gabriel
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Walter Bender
> Sugar Labs
> http://www.sugarlabs.org
>