[IAEP] Is "Most Sugar Users Use XO Laptops" True?

[Samuel Greenfeld]

On Sat, Apr 23, 2016 at 11:14 PM, Dave Crossland <dave at lab6.com> wrote:

> Free and Open Source: It seems that the XO-4 contains more proprietary
> software than the XO-1; and since Sugar isn't actually GPL, it seems Sugar
> Labs only has a preference for this.
>

The core Sugar programs are licensed GPLv2 or later, while the core Sugar
"toolkit" libraries are licensed LGPLv2 or later.  There was discussion
about moving everything to GPLv3 on this mailing list in April 2011.  But
as far as I know the license was not changed.

The XO-1.75 & XO-4 used accelerated video drivers which may be proprietary
and were not upstreamed.  But alternative drivers for these chipsets now
exist which potentially could be modified to work on XOs.  These did not
exist at the time said XOs were first released.


On Sun, Apr 24, 2016 at 12:04 AM, Chris Leonard <cjlhomeaddress at gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Sat, Apr 23, 2016 at 11:14 PM, Dave Crossland <dave at lab6.com> wrote:
>
> > Well, does Sugar Labs have a table listing each user community
> > ("deployment") and a person in each community who Sugar Labs can talk
> with?
> >
> > If not, let's make such a table :)
> >
> > It isn't clear to me where these 3 million XOs went... I heard that OLPC
> > didn't and won't make an easy to access list of all deployments available
> > because they are scared about other companies taking away their
> customers.
> > There seems to be enough published information to piece something like
> that
> > together, though.
>
> OLPC does share a table of the SKUs manufactured that contains some
> information about where they are going.
>
> http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Manufacturing_data
>
> Far from perfect for your purpose, but is is a start.
>
> >
> > Free and Open Source: It seems that the XO-4 contains more proprietary
> > software than the XO-1; and since Sugar isn't actually GPL, it seems
> Sugar
> > Labs only has a preference for this.
> >>
>
> Are you talking about a driver on the XO-4 or something, details would
> be useful in assessing this statement.  IANAL, so I'm not touching
> "Sugar isn't actually GPL", but if there are serious concerns about
> our licensing, please document them so others can look into it.
>
> cjl
> _______________________________________________
> IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
> IAEP at lists.sugarlabs.org
> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/iaep/attachments/20160424/89b49e9a/attachment-0001.html>