<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
Hi, Sam <br>
<br>
This was in response to Dave Crossland's concern that the Board is
acting in secret. The motion passed with 6 votes in favor and one
abstention. <br>
<br>
Tony<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 07/01/2016 11:55 AM, Sam Parkinson
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:1467366945.2039.0@smtp.gmail.com" type="cite">
<br>
<br>
On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 3:32 PM, Tony Anderson
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:tony_anderson@usa.net"><tony_anderson@usa.net></a> wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html;
charset=utf-8">
Hi, Dave<br>
<br>
This is what I have been able to find regarding the GPLv3
motion.<br>
<br>
<u>At today's Sugar Labs oversight board meeting [1], we
discussed the motion submitted by Sebastian Silva to finalize
the transition from GPLv2 to GPLv3 for the Sugar core
libraries (Sugar Activity developers are still free to choose
whatever Libre license they prefer for their work.) See [2]. I
second the motion and bring it to you in an email vote.</u></blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Didn't the motion pass? I already merged the change of
licence into the sugar repo, as per the approval.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Also, will we migrate sugar-toolkit-gtk3 to LGPLv3+? What
about sugar-datastore?</div>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"><u><br>
</u><u><br>
</u><u>Approve.</u><u><br>
</u><u> </u><u><br>
</u><u> Tony Anderson</u><u><br>
</u><u><br>
</u>
<p dir="ltr"><u>Approve.</u></p>
<u> </u>
<p dir="ltr"><u>Sameer</u><u><br>
</u></p>
<p dir="ltr"><u>Approve.</u></p>
<div><u><br>
</u></div>
<div><u>BTW I'm worried about the fact that the Sugar-Web part
(and so Sugarizer too) use the Apache 2.0 Licence. </u></div>
<div><u>I'm not a specialist but what imply a Licence migration
?</u></div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>These web people and their non copyleft liscenses. I'm
defiantly not a copyright holder for sugar-web, but aren't they
worried about people stealing their work and rolling it into
nonfree software?</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Thanks,</div>
<div>Sam</div>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div><u><br>
</u></div>
<div><u> Lionel.</u></div>
<u><br>
</u>
<div dir="ltr"><u>+1 para GPLv3 motion</u></div>
<u><br clear="all">
</u>
<div>
<div class="gmail_signature"><u><br>
</u><u>___________________</u><u><br>
</u><u>Lic. José Miguel García</u><u><br>
</u><u>Montevideo - Uruguay</u></div>
</div>
<u><br>
</u><u>Approved!</u>
<div><u><br>
</u></div>
<div><u>Claudia</u><br>
<br>
Today at 8:04PM (ET) would be the deadline for the GPLv3
motion. (May 13 @ 8:04PM ET)<br>
<br>
So this vote was 6 in favor and one abstention.<br>
<br>
Tony<br>
</div>
<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>