[IAEP] 3 questions about Sugar Desktop Copyleft

[Dave Crossland]

On 20 April 2016 at 10:49, Jonas Smedegaard <dr at jones.dk> wrote:

> Quoting Dave Crossland (2016-04-20 15:47:33)
> >
> https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Sugar_Labs/FAQ#What_are_the_principles_that_guide_Sugar_Labs.3F
> > says
> >
> > What are the principles that guide Sugar Labs?
> >
> > Sugar Labs subscribes to principle that learning thrives within a
> > culture of freedom of expression, hence it has a natural affinity with
> > the free software movement (Please see Principles page in this wiki
> > https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Sugar_Labs#Principles for more details).
> > The core Sugar platform has been developed under a GNU General Public
> > License (GPL); individual activities may be under different licenses.
> >
> >
> > That last sentence seems really weird to me, because as I understand
> > the GPL, and I Am Not A Lawyer, then if Sugar is GPL, all Activities
> > must be under GPL compatible libre software licenses.
>
> There is _granted_ license of sourcecode, and there is _effective_
> license of combined work.
>
> An activity with GPL-compatible liberal license (e.g. Expat a.k.a. MIT)
> is at runtime effectively GPL if linking with the GPL code.
>
> Note that e.g. communicating via DBus likely is not judged "linking".
>
> Liberal license is effective when code is a) reused in source form (e.g.
> forked for a BSD-based project), and b) if being granted an alternative
> license for the otherwise copyleft-licensed code.
>

I agree
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/iaep/attachments/20160420/f079d42f/attachment.html>