[Sugar-devel] licensing question

[Tony Anderson]

The bulk of the Sugar Activities were contributed through the ASLO 
process. This process assumes that the contributor is the 
copyright-holder. The contributor was asked to specify a license. 
Unfortunately that selection is not displayed on ASLO. Therefore, it is 
likely that the license clause in the activities in Github were 
arbitrarily chosen.

If SugarLabs has not received a letter from a lawyer in 10 years 
probably means that there is no objection or that the copyright holder 
sees our use as fair use.

If gplv3 is ok, it would seem that turtleblocks.js needs to change 
license to gpl3 - something that Walter is fully authorized to do.

Tony


On Thursday, 24 May, 2018 07:46 AM, Walter Bender wrote:
> Thank you!
>
> On Wed, May 23, 2018, 7:03 PM Adam Holt <holt at laptop.org 
> <mailto:holt at laptop.org>> wrote:
>
>     On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 6:41 PM, Walter Bender
>     <walter.bender at gmail.com <mailto:walter.bender at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>         We are struggling with a licensing question [1] and were
>         hoping that the SFC might be able to advise us. Can you please
>         reach out to them in your role as liaison?
>
>
>     I've emailed Karen Sandler (SFConservancy) asking how/who we
>     should approach -
>
>     Adam
>
>         thx
>
>         -walter
>
>         [1] https://github.com/llaske/sugarizer/issues/48
>
>         -- 
>         Walter Bender
>         Sugar Labs
>         http://www.sugarlabs.org
>
>         -- 
>         Unsung Heroes of OLPC, interviewed live @
>         <http://www.sugarlabs.org>http://unleashkids.org !
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Sugar-devel mailing list
> Sugar-devel at lists.sugarlabs.org
> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/sugar-devel/attachments/20180524/21fa9b68/attachment.html>