Yoshiki.<br>I'll forward this information to the Ubuntu Squeak maintainer.<br><br>Do you know who I should talk to about requesting that <a href="http://www.squeak.org/SqueakLicense/">http://www.squeak.org/SqueakLicense/</a> be update to reflect this information?<br>
<br>thanks<br>david<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 1:55 AM, Yoshiki Ohshima <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:yoshiki@vpri.org">yoshiki@vpri.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Hello,<br>
<br>
1. The statement Walter quoted (As of this summer, "all of the code<br>
<div class="Ih2E3d"> contained in our Squeak Etoys version 4.0 is covered by either<br>
</div> the Apache 2.0 or MIT Licenses.") is correct. Edward quoted the<br>
email I sent around while ago. We have a license-clean Etoys<br>
V. 4.0 developers image.<br>
<div class="Ih2E3d"><br>
> The problem here is that edubuntu and its packages are in Ubuntu Main,<br>
> and for sugar to be in there, there must be no non-free software in<br>
> it, and squeak is not totally free. Apple fonts not being modifiable,<br>
</div><div class="Ih2E3d">> iirc. Its pretty much the same policy as debian. Scratch was recently<br>
> rejected from MOTU for the similar reasons.<br>
<br>
</div> 2. Apple fonts has been removed from any newer Squeak-variations,<br>
including Etoys. So, Apple fonts is not an issue.<br>
<div class="Ih2E3d"><br>
> Is the issue where squeak was originally licensed under a non-free Apple license[1] and the squeak foundations can't<br>
> locate all of the original contributors[2] to convert it to an mit license?<br>
><br>
</div><div class="Ih2E3d">> <a href="http://www.squeak.org/SqueakLicense/" target="_blank">http://www.squeak.org/SqueakLicense/</a><br>
</div><div class="Ih2E3d">> <a href="http://netjam.org/squeak/contributors/missingSignatories" target="_blank">http://netjam.org/squeak/contributors/missingSignatories</a><br>
<br>
</div> 3. Just looking at "missingSignatories" without looking at actual<br>
code is misleading because their code are alreay removed or<br>
rewritten.<br>
<br>
4. We haven't made an RPM or any package from the dev image yet.<br>
Making a RPM doesn't take long, but we just haven't gotten around<br>
testing it enough... Of course, one way to test it is to create<br>
an RPM and have people try. If you say we should, we can<br>
certainly do so from the current v 4.0.<br>
<br>
5. So, if the license was the problem, there shouldn't be any<br>
problem for including the latest version of Etoys into such<br>
distros. If the development model is the problem, well,<br>
solutions are potentially implementable, but would take some time<br>
to carray through.<br>
<font color="#888888"><br>
-- Yoshiki<br>
</font><div><div></div><div class="Wj3C7c">_______________________________________________<br>
Sugar mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Sugar@lists.laptop.org">Sugar@lists.laptop.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/sugar" target="_blank">http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/sugar</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br>