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

[Walter Bender]

On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 2:57 PM, Gabriel Eirea <geirea at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

I cannot speak for all of the packages in Fedora. I would be surprised
if it possible for every package to be rebuilt in $HOME. But I would
be equally surprised if you could not build the Sugar packages in
$HOME. Bernie and I will try to reproduce the Ceibal environment on an
XO and test this.

As much as I don't like the policy -- and I have let the management at
Ceibal know this -- I am not prepared to interfere with how they
choose to deploy Sugar as long as it is technically within the
guidelines outlined by the license -- freedom cuts both ways: they are
free to do thins with the code that I don't like. What I am prepared
to do is work towards making Sugar more readily hackable by the end
user regardless of how it is installed on the machine. Then the kids
win no matter what the policy of the deployment might be. I'd love to
channel the energy of this debate into writing some code to expand the
utility of View Source to (a) include all of Sugar, not just the Sugar
activities; and (b) make it possible from View Source to make
modifications that are stored in $HOME but persistent to one's Sugar
environment without having to invoke any fancy scripting in the Shell.

Maybe something we can tackle in Montevideo next week?

-walter

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



-- 
Walter Bender
Sugar Labs
http://www.sugarlabs.org