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

Yamandu Ploskonka yamaplos at gmail.com
Mon Apr 1 09:33:19 EDT 2013

simple, short questions:
1) a link to *source* as modified by Ceibal

2) an actual, real life case of someone that was able to run on a
Ceibal machine a *modified* version of said code, to the point that it
can be assumed that a normal Ceibal user would be able to do so.
(extra special engineer feats with special access don't count, sorry)

3) relevant data that the "fact" that Ceibal offers dev keys does take
place in reality, i.e., that normal, simple Ceibal users can easily,
no-nonsense request a dev key to bypass whatever block Ceibal puts,
and load other, non-Ceibal images on the Ceibalitas. An example of
this would be how many dev keys has Ceibal distributed

I am opening for Richard Stallman tonight, in La Paz, and I intend to
follow through on the matter that Ceibalitas are, for all effects,
"tivoized", as per:
"products containing computers (including many Android devices) come
with executable programs that correspond to free software source code,
but the devices do not allow the user to install modified versions of
those executables; only one special company has the power to modify
them. We call these devices “tyrants”, and the practice is called

Of course, there being evidence that Ceibalitas are not tivoized, the
point becomes moot, and I, and Ceibal users are grateful to have Free
software in their hands.

Thank you!


On 4/27/11, John Watlington <wad at laptop.org> wrote:
> On Apr 26, 2011, at 6:26 PM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
>> On 11-04-26 at 04:28pm, John Watlington wrote:
>>> As Martin says, GPL v3 moves from requiring that modifications be
>>> shared, to telling you what you can and cannot do with the code.
>> Did Martin really acknowledge that XOs - if considered _transportation_
>> devices for Sugar - would cause GPLv3 to be violated?!?
> I don't believe a GPL v3 Sugar distributed on Uruguay's laptops
> would be in violation, for the reasons Walter has listed, but IANAL.
> The problem would be any Linux OS components which are GPL v3
> (increasing in new releases) which cannot be replaced by the user.
> If a deployment provides root access on the XO, I don't believe
> this is a problem either.
> GPL v3 forces licensees to treat users of a device as if they were
> the actual owners of the device.   This prevents the use of GPL v3
> code in devices whose hardware costs are subsidized by service fees.
> It also seems to make it hard to use GPL v3 code in devices
> subsidized/provided-for-free for a specific goal.   The kiosk idea
> mentioned by Martin is the classic example of GPL v3 interfering
> with a perfectly fine possibly non-profit use of FOSS.
> Another is shared laptops (despite our goal of one/child, I hear of
> deployments attempting to timeshare).  If deployments are forced
> by GPL v3 to allow any user to replace any system component,
> all sorts of functionality and security issues arise.
> At MIT Project Athena years ago this was solved by
> keeping all user data in the cloud and rewriting the operating system
> and common applications when a user logged out.   But this required
> lots of network bandwidth, server farms, and physically securing the
> actual computers.
> Can you tell I should be working on something else ?
> wad
> _______________________________________________
> IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
> IAEP at lists.sugarlabs.org
> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

More information about the IAEP mailing list