[Sugar-devel] Is Project Ceibal violating the GNU General Public License?

[Sebastian Silva]

Pareciera ser que estamos en una situación de violación de la licencia...

Una pregunta, deduzco entonces que OLPC no está a cargo de
entregar las claves de desarrollador para las XO que están en Perú -
me pregunto:

En Perú, cómo puede un maestro o un chico, solicitar una clave de desarrollador?

Hernán? Koke?

Debemos asegurarnos que nuestros estados estén cumpliendo con
las condiciones de la licencia.

Gracias

Sebastian


2009/8/24 Andrés Ambrois <andresambrois at gmail.com>:
> On Monday 24 August 2009 10:11:54 am Walter Bender wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 3:48 AM, John Gilmore<gnu at toad.com> wrote:
>> > Re: [Sugar-devel] RFH - Journal corruption reports fom 8.2.1 users in Uy
>> >
>> >> Remember that Ceibal XOs have root access locked-down. And I recently
>> >> found out that since the key-delegation stuff was implemented, we can't
>> >> request developer keys. Not from OLPC at least, and LATU is not
>> >> providing that service that I know...
>> >
>> > Could someone please clarify this?
>>
>> According to Ceilbal (24-08-09):
>>
>> "We have delivered developer keys in the past, and we will deliver them to
>> the owner of the machine upon request."
>>
>> Therefore, I do not think that there is a violation of the GPL.
>
> I wrote to Ceibal asking for information and this is what they replied:
>
> "Hola Andrés,
> Debido al sistema de seguridad incorporado en la XO, el Plan Ceibal no brinda
> la clave de desarrollador. Esto se debe, a que una persona con acceso a la
> clave podría desactivar la seguridad de la máquina.
>  Cualquier otra consulta, no dudes en volver a comunicarte."
>
> Translation:
>
> Hello Andrés,
>
> Because of the security system built into the XO, Plan Ceibal doesn't provide
> developer keys. This is because a person with access to the key could
> deactivate the security of the machine.
> Don't hesitate in contacting us for any other questions.
>
>> -walter
>>
>> > It sounds like Project Ceibal is explicitly violating the GNU General
>> > Public License on much or all of the software that it ships:
>> >
>> >  *  It provides binaries without source code, and without a written
>> >     offer of source code.
>> >
>> >  *  It provides binaries in a physical form (laptop) which is
>> >     protected against modification by the end-user, so that those
>> >     users cannot replace the GPLv3-licensed software on the laptop
>> >     with later versions.  More than 20 packages shipped are GPLv3
>> >     licensed, as of 12 months ago, including the Coreutils (most
>> >     shell commands), tar and cpio (used for software updates), and
>> >     gettext (internationalization).  GPLv3 requires that the relevant
>> >     passwords or keys must be supplied to the end user -- including
>> >     both the "developer key" and the root password.
>> >
>> >  *  Some programs are modified, but the modified versions are not
>> >     marked to distinguish them from the original GPL-licensed
>> >     programs.
>> >
>> > There are other less important violations as well (most are documented
>> > at bugs.laptop.org; search for "GPL").
>> >
>> > I would be happy to learn that the children receiving these laptops
>> > have full access to source code, ability to upgrade their laptops
>> > at will, and can tell modified from unmodified software.  Please let
>> > me know what is really happening in the schools of Uruguay.
>> >
>> >        John Gilmore
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Devel mailing list
>> > Devel at lists.laptop.org
>> > http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
>
> --
>  -Andrés
> _______________________________________________
> Sugar-devel mailing list
> Sugar-devel at lists.sugarlabs.org
> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
>



-- 
Sebastian Silva
Laboratorios FuenteLibre
http://blog.sebastiansilva.com/