[Sugar-devel] Licensing of the javascript libraries

[Walter Bender]

On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 4:12 AM, Daniel Narvaez <dwnarvaez at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

FWIW, the poll was only taken after a long discussion where we did not
reach consensus.

>
>
> 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 Faraone
>> Sugar 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Sugar-devel mailing list
> Sugar-devel at lists.sugarlabs.org
> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
>



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