[IAEP] scratch license
sebastian at somosazucar.org
Fri Aug 5 12:29:43 EDT 2011
I'm using Trisquel on a Sugar Toast 4.51 and noticed that the
autoupdater wants me to install Scratch, although its non-free both by
Trisquel's definition and Sugar Activity Library policy. This is
critical in a Free distribution like Trisquel, where we take the effort
to rebrand for instance Firefox because of its non free branding policy.
So i've filed a bug report with Trisquel to keep track of this:
This was discussed earlier and I think I remember we agreed to remove
Scratch from ASLO but we haven't done so yet.
Can we take action now and hope for a free scratch someday?
El 05/06/11 22:49, Jecel Assumpcao Jr. escribió:
> Chris Ball wrote on Sun, 05 Jun 2011 11:16:46 -0400
>> On Sun, Jun 05 2011, Bernie Innocenti wrote:
>>> The very short summary is that there are two different licenses for
>>> Scratch: one for the source code, which prohibits calling the resulting
>>> binary Scratch and uploading projects to the website, and one for
>>> binaries, which doesn't allow modification. It's hard to notice the
>>> problem, because they don't mention it even in the license FAQ.
>> Just a quick addition: the source license *also* prohibits commercial use.
>> So, even if we accepted the rules about naming and uploading as being just
>> a ham-fisted attempt to implement trademark law inside a copyright license,
>> the non-commercial clause would still be a show-stopper. :/
> While I totally disagree with what they did, I understand why they did
> The name restrictions were a reaction to the Etoys situation, where when
> you load a given version of Etoys it is very easy to find projects on
> the web that won't load into it (sometimes too new, but mostly too old).
> They wanted full control so that anything named Scratch that you ever
> download can go to their web site and work with any of the nearly 2
> million projects there. My opinion is that this is a hopeless quest
> (even more ambitious than the OLPC plan to make the exact same XO for
> five years), but the software is theirs to try.
> The non commercial thing is simply that they were afraid of closing off
> options of making money in the future with stuff like
> The idea is that they could always open up in the future, but if they
> started open then it would not be possible to restrict stuff later if
> As I said, I don't like any of this and can understand if there is a
> decision not to include it as a basic part of Sugar. But many children
> around the world have benefited greatly from this software so it would
> be important for it to be easy for them to get it.
> -- Jecel
> IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
> IAEP at lists.sugarlabs.org
More information about the IAEP