<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
From the olpc-uruguay list in an unrelated thread:<br>
<br>
"Si utilizamos las claves de desarrollador (que son las que permiten
hacer cualquier cosa en la maquina), pero al momento solo se
entregan por solicitudes puntuales (proyectos de grado por
ejemplo)." - Ing. Daniel Castelo - Plan Ceibal - Área Técnica<br>
<a
href="http://lists.laptop.org/pipermail/olpc-uruguay/2011-April/005222.html">http://lists.laptop.org/pipermail/olpc-uruguay/2011-April/005222.html</a><br>
Rough translation:<br>
<i>"We do use developer keys (the ones that allow you to do anything
with the machine), but at the moment they are only given for
specific requests (like for example thesis projects)." - Eng
Daniel Castelo - Plan Ceibal - Technical Area<br>
</i><br>
<br>
I know its not official but its a pretty clear indication that
developer keys are not available to everyone.<br>
This makes Yama's concerns valid and important, I think.<br>
Since the board will probably meet in UY next month, this should be
an item in our agenda.<br>
<br>
Sebastian<br>
<br>
<br>
El 23/04/11 13:49, Yamandu Ploskonka escribió:
<blockquote cite="mid:4DB31F24.4080601@gmail.com" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
following Martin's timely advice, may I please try again, so we
can finish this with simple answers?<br>
<br>
the question is (or are)<br>
<br>
<ol>
<li>is locking users out in compliance with current GPL?</li>
<li>does Ceibal lock out users?</li>
<li>is there a known procedure to get keys for Ceibal users?<br>
</li>
<li>is Ceibal in compliance with current GPL?</li>
<li>if no, who should follow up? the FSF? the Sugarlabs Board?</li>
<li>were of-record (2, 3) Ceibal policies to continue, would it
be in compliance with GPL3?<br>
</li>
<li>if no, who should follow up? the FSF? the Sugarlabs Board?<br>
</li>
</ol>
I know that 2 and 3 are almost rhetorical, but in the interest of
not building other questions as "loaded", I add them there. There
even might be good news I am unaware of that someone who is better
informed can offer!<br>
<br>
Thank you<br>
<br>
Yama<br>
<br>
<br>
On 04/23/2011 01:16 PM, Martin Langhoff wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:BANLkTim2WrbEgoBou6OaOX19X7gdM103Ww@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Folks --
one thing we need to be in good intellectual shape to handle loaded
questions. Everyone here probably knows them well, but I just re-read
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question</a>
and it was rather refreshing and useful.
In general, if you don't know much about a topic, it is a good idea to
*avoid* making inflammatory statements and accusations.
You can ask, but please don't mix the valid questions with accusations
or loaded questions. It doesn't help anyone.
cheers,
m
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
_______________________________________________
SLOBs mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:SLOBs@lists.sugarlabs.org">SLOBs@lists.sugarlabs.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/slobs">http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/slobs</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>