[Sugar-devel] GPL non-compliance, was Re: [IAEP] [SLOBS] GPLv3
walter.bender at gmail.com
Thu Apr 21 07:05:50 EDT 2011
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 11:15 PM, Yamandu Ploskonka <yamaplos at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 04/20/2011 08:05 PM, Walter Bender wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 8:52 PM, Yamandu Ploskonka<yamaplos at gmail.com>
>>> AFAIK (please correct me) Uruguay is not providing code, thus in
>>> of GNU license, and this situation has not been solved after several
>> This is a serious accusation. Can you please provide some backup?
>> Specific to Sugar?
> If it is serious, why hasn't it been *solved* before?
There has not been any accusation prior to yours that Ceibal was
violating the GPL in regard to Sugar.
> Walter, I am too dumb to know the full ins and outs of this. I also have
> been advised that I should not mess with this because (as I understood it)
> there's some sort of insider arrangement I do not know and clearly I am not
> supposed to know, but time passes and the matter is not solved.
> You know this is no new issue, so I find it really out of place (and it
> hurts a bit) that I am pointed out like the "serious accuser", eh?
We have been as a community working on the general issue of getting
machines 'unlocked' in Uruguay, as as Bernie points out, we have
apparently succeeded. Your serious accusation about Sugar was new and
was a bit out of the blue. And your proposed remedies a bit extreme.
And you presented no new evidence. I don't think you were treated
unfairly. You were given thoughtful responses from the community as to
why they think you are incorrect in this instance. I am not sure what
else you could have expected in the case that you were wrong.
> BTW, if the "accusation" were true, who should write that cease-and-desist
> letter to Ceibal?
I had spoken to the FSF about this (and the SFLC) and they both had
recommended the path we took: work with Ceibal to remedy the
> Now, if this is irrelevant to Sugar's GPL, I apologize again, pull down my
> flag and take my spanking like a man.
As far as I know, it is irrelevant to Sugar's GPL. Which is why I
asked you to explain to the community why you thought otherwise.
> IMHO, if we are to learn anything from the current 3 cups of tea thing, it
> is that it works to all's benefit to sort these things out in the open.
Where are we not being open?
More information about the Sugar-devel