[Sugar-devel] Pippy not ready for Sucrose

[Wade Brainerd]

It's important to separate the pragmatism from the license concern.
I fully support the pragmatism of shipping libraries with activities as a
temporary solution, if that's what is needed to make the activity work.

If the license *requires* us to include the source code to the compiled
module (is a link sufficient??) in the activity bundle, I guess we have to
do that too.  But that's a separate issue.

Cheers,
Wade

On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 6:18 PM, Luke Faraone <luke at faraone.cc> wrote:

> On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 5:21 PM, Nirav Patel <olpc at spongezone.net> wrote:
>
>> I prefer to look at it pragmatically.  Until there is some kind of
>> dependency handling for .xo packages, this is the difference between a
>> child at an existing deployment being able to browse to the wiki,
>> download an activity, and use it, or not being able to.
>
>
> It's also the difference between following the license terms and not.
>
> --
> Luke Faraone
> http://luke.faraone.cc
>
> _______________________________________________
> Sugar-devel mailing list
> Sugar-devel at lists.sugarlabs.org
> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/sugar-devel/attachments/20090120/d53b24a5/attachment.htm