[Sugar-devel] Licensing of the javascript libraries

[Daniel Narvaez]

Thanks for clarifying Sebastian. I prefer discussions to polls to
make decisions (and a poll would be not binding anyway) but I'm not against
a poll if people think it's necessary.

On Saturday, 8 June 2013, Sebastian Silva wrote:

>  Hi,
> The poll winner was GPLv3 but the poll was "non-binding", i.e. the
> community can't force contributors to switch licenses and nobody sent a
> patch to change license notices.
>
> I and other members of the community think it's important to support
> freedom by using copyleft, therefore most of our contributions are using
> GPLv3.
>
> I checked and it turns out Apache 2.0 license is compatible with GPLv3
> (but incompatible with GPLv2):
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#apache2
>
> Regards,
> Sebastian
>
> El 07/06/13 19:38, Daniel Narvaez escribió:
>
> I'm actually a bit confused about the result of the one year ago
> discussion. I thought we decided to stay with gplv2 but the poll winner
> seems to be gplv3?
>
>  Anyway even on gplv3 I think the situation is pretty different if
> nothing else because one of major goals of the web activities work is to
> bring activities on devices where tivoization might be an issue.
>
> On Saturday, 8 June 2013, Daniel Narvaez wrote:
>
> Yes I think it's very different because using GPLv2 would mean we can't
> use Apache licensed libraries, which are a big percentage of available js
> libraries.
>
> On Saturday, 8 June 2013, Gonzalo Odiard wrote:
>
> We already had this discussion two years ago,
> is the situation with the javascript activities different to need
> start this discussion again?
>
>  Gonzalo
>
> On 06/14/2011 05:42 PM, Luke Faraone wrote:
> > This is a vote to determine the suggested license for future releases
> > of Sugar. This poll will run from right now until Wed Jun 29 2011 at
> > midnight UTC-4.
>
> Sorry for the late update; the reporting mechanism for our voting
> software temporarily broke.
>
> Summary: the winner was **GNU GPL version 3, or any later version**.
>
> ## Results Details ##
>
> 55 out of 217 eligible members voted, or a little more than ¼.
>
> The full results of this election ranked the candidates in order of
> preference (from most preferred to least preferred):
>
>  1. GNU GPL version 3, or any later version
>  2. GNU GPL version 2, or any later version
>  3. Don't know or don't care
>
>
> Each number in the table below shows how many times the candidate on the
> left beat the matching candidate on the top. The winner is on the top of
> the left column.
> 	v3 	v2 	DC
> v3 	-- 	34 	37
> v2 	21 	-- 	42
> DC 	18 	13 	--
>
> Based on a sheer count of 1st place votes, v3 received 49% of the vote,
> v2 received 29% of the vote, and the apathetic position received the
> remaining 22% of the vote.
>
> Full details (and alternative election method calculations) are visible
> at the Selectricity page linked in the original voting ticket email.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Luke FaraoneSugar Labs, Systems
> ✉: luke at sugarlabs.org
> I: lfaraone on irc.freenode.net
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 8:59 PM, Daniel Narvaez <dwnarvaez at gmail.com>wrote:
>
> Well permission to double license really.
>
>
> On Saturday, 8 June 2013, Daniel Narvaez wrote:
>
> Ugh one issue with Apache is that I think we would need to get permission
> to relicense the svg icons under apache from all the people that
> contributed to them. Do you think that will be possible?
>
>  People that contributed but doesn't seem to be involved with the project
> anymore.
>
>  Eben Eliason
> Marco Pesenti Gritti
> Tomeu Vizoso
>
>  Still around
>
>  Scott Ananian
> benzea
> erikos
> Martin Abente
> Walter Bender
> godiard
> Manuel Quinones
>
> From the git log of the icons dir.
>
> On Saturday, 8 June 2013, Daniel Narvaez
>
>

-- 
Daniel Narvaez
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/sugar-devel/attachments/20130608/6fdbad1b/attachment.html>