[Sugar-devel] GPL non-compliance, was Re: [IAEP] [SLOBS] GPLv3

[Walter Bender]

On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 8:52 PM, Yamandu Ploskonka <yamaplos at gmail.com> wrote:
> AFAIK (please correct me) Uruguay is not providing code, thus in violation
> of GNU license, and this situation has not been solved after several years.

This is a serious accusation. Can you please provide some backup?
Specific to Sugar?

>
> With GPL 3 will the Uruguay security code be considered a System Library and
> thus exempt from providing code? That might be an elegant way out from what
> I believe has been their systematic non-compliance in this respect, and
> maybe get them to open the rest (which is silly, as the machines would still
> be blocked...)

I am not sure that this is relevant to Sugar per se, but if so, please
explain which security code is applicable.

>
> BTW, and regarding that, what's the point of having a license if such clear
> violation just go like that forever?  we all know that the desire that kids
> would do stuff with source just hasn't happened so much (I agree with Martin
> there), but nevertheless it is common knowledge that I have not been the
> only one that has been given the "oso" by Ceibal... And requests from real
> potential developers are apparently not going anywhere, to the point that
> Walter had to take a liberated XO to a UY kid for that purpose.

Again, this was not in respect to Sugar. Also, last time I was .uy, I
was told that full access to the machine was part of the Ceibal
upgrade plan. I have not seen evidence one way or another to suggest
that this is not still the plan.

>
> if enforcing the license is not possible, then I respectfully submit that
> this meeting agree that Sugar be distributed as Public Domain, so at least
> we do not have the appearance of some limits when those are not to be
> enforced, or something that works.  BTW, I believe that there is an
> obligation by right-holders to at least attempt to enforce their rights, and
> if they do not, it can legally be assumed they have none.  I am no expert
> but took some training in this respect a while back.

I think we need some of the above questions answered before we pursue
such a course.

-walter

>
> And no, saying that this is being taken care of will not work anymore,
> Martin. (unless actually it has been solved, in which case hip hip hooray
> and my apologies).
>
> Thanks!
>
> Yama
>
> On 04/20/2011 05:55 PM, Walter Bender wrote:
>>
>> If you have time before tomorrow's meeting, please take a look at
>> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/quick-guide-gplv3.html
>>
>> regards.
>>
>> -walter
>>
>



-- 
Walter Bender
Sugar Labs
http://www.sugarlabs.org