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

[Walter Bender]

Sigh.

On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 4:42 PM, Yamaplos . <yamaplos at gmail.com> wrote:
> Guys, with all due respect, this is reaching a level of silly befuddlement.
>
> Maybe all source IS available somewhere somehow, thus GPL's honor is
> safe, and at least technically there is compliance, and saying it
> ain't so is untrue.
>
> Which is not worth a "vintén", since such so called "availability" is
> so inconvenient that the actual purpose and expectation - that people
> can freely access the software, and/or do software modifications in
> their machines- is not there. That is what us Sudacas are trying to
> get across, and what some don't seem to get in this debate.
>
> What the northern experts are trying to tell us is that there is no
> violation of the GPL. It seems that they may be right, technically,
> but apparently to actually access source code is something totally
> beyond most normal developers. Usual distribution of software complies
> with GPL 2 section 3 in easier ways, like a plain-text document, or an
> URL where you get such plain text document.
>
> So what we got here is that Ceibal might be OK with the law, while the
> Sabines are basically expected to relax and enjoy it. Curiously, the
> experts so far have told me how to access and modify such source, but
> none have pointed to someone who had been successful at it and
> bypassed the blocks built in.

What the "northern experts" are trying to say is that we are bound by
the law, but no one, north or south, has said "relax and enjoy it."
This is an unfair characterization. As per my previous post, rather
than pointing fingers, why don't we start coding?

Can we please move on?

-walter

>
> Another relevant quote, "the law, in its majestic equality, equally
> forbids to both rich and poor to pee in the streets, sleep under
> bridges, and steal bread" (following A.France).
>
> Walter has shared with me through the years about his efforts to solve
> this issue - he does care.  Yet apparently what he had been told has
> not been real, maybe he can share with us more details. I do not know
> how much what he has been told counts, legally, but bottom line is
> that we don't seem we can hope for this to be solved soon: from
> another source I got that the fix was supposed to have been part of
> the update that has already been distributed.
>
> Hopefully our experts will come around technicalities and actually put
> their expertise to fix this real problem, as Walter offers. Godspeed!
>
> 2011/4/26, Andrés Ambrois <andresambrois at gmail.com>:
>> On Tuesday, April 26, 2011 04:14:29 pm Walter Bender wrote:
>>> 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?
>>
>>  Count me in :).
>>
>> --
>>   -Andrés
>>
>



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