[Sugar-devel] Activity & SoaS Licensing Concerns

[Sebastian Dziallas]

Tim McNamara wrote:
> On 13 February 2010 09:15, Sebastian Dziallas <sebastian at when.com
> <mailto:sebastian at when.com>> wrote:
>
>     If nobody complains by the end of this weekend, I'll just upload the
>     images, put a GPLv2+ license in the archive and make a tarball, as this
>     is what they've been listed under in Strawberry and Blueberry, too.
>
>     --Sebastian
>
>
> Sebastian, apparently the GPL isn't really that great for creative
> works, like images & documents. Will see if I can get some more info by
> the end of the weekend.
>
> Tim

Alright, so here's the thing: I basically don't care what it's licensed 
under, as long as it's in the blessed license list either here [1] or 
here [2]. It would make certainly sense to go with a content license 
instead, agreed.

And I guess from how our logo policy [3] looks like, we might need to 
have a some more restrictive one there, since the tarball would 
essentially only bundle the boot screen (I guess it wouldn't make much 
sense to put something that's intended for SoaS in the sugar-artwork 
package, right? - Simon?).

 From the wiki table in [2], it looks like we could go with a CC-BY-ND, 
too. Is everybody alright with this?

--Sebastian

[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#Good_Licenses
[2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#Good_Licenses_3
[3] http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Marketing_Team/Logo#Logo_usage