[Sugar-devel] licensing question

James Cameron quozl at laptop.org
Thu May 24 18:27:46 EDT 2018


G'day Alex,

Sorry if you saw insults.

No, I would not remove link from Sugar Labs master branch of Browse.

I would remove from my fork, based on Ubuntu 18.04.  Tony's
spreadsheets show which activities work, but ASLO presents non-working
activities to users of Ubuntu 18.04 systems.  It is a product quality
issue for me.  I don't have resources to maintain all activities.

Browse does send (aka leak) Sugar version in User-Agent of all
requests;

https://github.com/sugarlabs/browse-activity/blob/230a27806544de5eb4840af95bb76d1286ad6288/browser.py#L672

ASLO does parse this from request, assuming 0.112 if missing;

https://github.com/sugarlabs/aslo/blob/507369b38e6b8923bf148f2757a8ba7db8c24c88/site/app/config/core.php#L233

ASLO does not offer activities incompatible with Sugar version, but in
a quick look I've not found code.  There are SQL select statements
with version limiting.

But Sugar version is not a proxy for distribution version.

Yes, you should be able to capture usage by version, it may already be
in logs.

On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 10:56:19AM -0700, Alex Perez wrote:
> Folks,
> 
> These attitudes are totally unhelpful, and I urge you to drop it, stop hurling
> insults. To be honest, I think both of you have valid points, and for the time
> being, I am not a fan of shutting down the legacy ASLO, until we have data that
> it's _really_ not being used. Removing the link from the landing page of the
> next version of sugar is a different thing entirely, so let's not conflate
> them. The deployed base on XO machines is largely running very old versions of
> Sugar, and many of those activities likely work fine with those old versions of
> Sugar. This is something I do not think James is considering, but perhaps I'm
> wrong.
> 
> We have access logs for ASLO. We can easily determine how often, and which,
> activities are downloaded. I do not personally know which server.
> 
> What we may lack, metric-wise, is what the version of Sugar on the client
> machine is. Is this encoded into the user agent of the custom browser, by
> chance? I assume not, but it's worth asking the question.
> 
>     [1]Tony Anderson
>     May 23, 2018 at 11:27 PM
>     James Cameron's devotion to alternate facts is what is amusing (actually
>     sad). The only way Sugar users can access activities not already installed
>     is by ASLO (unless we have some really carefully hidden source).
> 
>     Tony
> 
>     _______________________________________________
>     Sugar-devel mailing list
>     [2]Sugar-devel at lists.sugarlabs.org
>     [3]http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
>     [4]James Cameron
>     May 23, 2018 at 5:54 PM
> 
>     Copyright on the source code of these activities is held by their
>     original authors, and not by Sugar Labs.
> 
>     The ASLO process is a distribution of software by Sugar Labs, and the
>     licenses are in the source code bundles.  It makes no real difference
>     what was entered into ASLO as metadata, what matters is the copyright
>     and license declaration in the source code.
> 
>     Up until last year, ASLO did not require a license.  A pending change
>     to ASLO had not been put into production.  Since that change, each new
>     upload to ASLO has had to have a license field added if there wasn't
>     one.  But again, this license field is only a summary, and has little
>     bearing.  What matters is the copyright and license in the source.
> 
>     Whether Sugar Labs has received a letter or not is immaterial; but as
>     a distributor Sugar Labs need only check that the license is
>     acceptable before distributing.
> 
>     One of the issues at hand is bundling of TurtleBlocksJS inside
>     Sugarizer.  Sugarizer does not use ASLO, so what ASLO did or does is
>     immaterial.
> 
>     TurtleBlocksJS is AGPLv3+ in js/activity.js, has bundled source of
>     various other licenses, and has no license metadata in activity.info.
> 
>     I agree that one solution is for the authors of TurtleBlocksJS to
>     relicense their work to one more compatible with Sugarizer's Apache
>     2.0 license.  Another is for Sugarizer to relicense.  Best would be a
>     path from AGPLv3+ to Apache 2.0; I've not found one yet.
> 
>     Perhaps the new availability of Scratch on Sugarizer reduces the demand
>     for TurtleBlocksJS.
> 
>     I certainly don't agree with Tony's suggestion there has been
>     arbitrary choice of license in GitHub repositories, and have acted and
>     will act to change any incorrect choice.
> 
>     The other issue of porting from Python to JavaScript is creating a
>     derivative work, so the original license does apply.
> 
>     If the source license is GPLv2 then ask the original copyright owner
>     to relicense as GPLv2+ or GPLv3+.  If they cannot be contacted, stop.
> 
>     If the source license is GPLv2+, then anyone can relicense as GPLv3+,
>     though it is convenient to ask the original copyright owners to
>     agree.
> 
>     If the source license is GPLv3+, then anyone can relicense as Apache
>     2.0.
> 
>     For the keeping of good records, these relicensing actions should be
>     commits with the intent clearly stated in commit messages.
> 
>     Tony's insistence on ASLO continues to amuse me.  Most distribution of
>     activities now happens through bundles, tarballs, and GitHub.  ASLO is
>     rarely used by distributors or indeed useful for anything except
>     personal searches for broken activities.  Tony's numbers make it
>     plain.  My own plan is to remove the link to "activities" in Browse
>     default page; plenty of disk space these days to include all working
>     activities in a build.
> 
>     On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 08:02:30AM +0800, Tony Anderson wrote:
> 
>         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 [5]<[1]holt at laptop.org> wrote:
> 
>                 On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 6:41 PM, Walter Bender <[2]
>                 [6]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] [3][7]https://github.com/llaske/sugarizer/issues/48
> 
>                     --
>                     Walter Bender
>                     Sugar Labs
>                     [4][8]http://www.sugarlabs.org
> 
>                     --
>                     [5]Unsung Heroes of OLPC, interviewed live @ [6][9]http://
>                     unleashkids.org !
> 
>             _______________________________________________
>             Sugar-devel mailing list
>             [[10]7]Sugar-devel at lists.sugarlabs.org
>             [8][11]http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
> 
>         References:
> 
>         [1] [12]mailto:holt at laptop.org
>         [2] [13]mailto:walter.bender at gmail.com
>         [3] [14]https://github.com/llaske/sugarizer/issues/48
>         [4] [15]http://www.sugarlabs.org/
>         [5] [16]http://www.sugarlabs.org/
>         [6] [17]http://unleashkids.org/
>         [7] [18]mailto:Sugar-devel at lists.sugarlabs.org
>         [8] [19]http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
> 
>         _______________________________________________
>         Sugar-devel mailing list
>         [20]Sugar-devel at lists.sugarlabs.org
>         [21]http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
> 
>     [22]Tony Anderson
>     May 23, 2018 at 5:02 PM
>     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:
> 
>     _______________________________________________
>     Sugar-devel mailing list
>     [23]Sugar-devel at lists.sugarlabs.org
>     [24]http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
>     [25]Walter Bender
>     May 23, 2018 at 4:46 PM
>     Thank you! 
> 
>     _______________________________________________
>     Sugar-devel mailing list
>     [26]Sugar-devel at lists.sugarlabs.org
>     [27]http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
>     [28]Adam Holt
>     May 23, 2018 at 4:03 PM
>     On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 6:41 PM, Walter Bender <[29]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] [30]https://github.com/llaske/sugarizer/issues/48
> 
>         --
>         Walter Bender
>         Sugar Labs
>         [31]http://www.sugarlabs.org
> 
>         --
>         [32]Unsung Heroes of OLPC, interviewed live @ [33]http://
>         unleashkids.org !
>    
>     _______________________________________________
>     Sugar-devel mailing list
>     [34]Sugar-devel at lists.sugarlabs.org
>     [35]http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
> 
> --
> Sent from [36]Postbox
> 
> References:
> 
> [1] mailto:tony_anderson at usa.net
> [2] mailto:Sugar-devel at lists.sugarlabs.org
> [3] http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
> [4] mailto:quozl at laptop.org
> [5] mailto:[1]holt at laptop.org
> [6] mailto:walter.bender at gmail.com
> [7] https://github.com/llaske/sugarizer/issues/48
> [8] http://www.sugarlabs.org/
> [9] http:///
> [10] mailto:7]Sugar-devel at lists.sugarlabs.org
> [11] http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
> [12] mailto:holt at laptop.org
> [13] mailto:walter.bender at gmail.com
> [14] https://github.com/llaske/sugarizer/issues/48
> [15] http://www.sugarlabs.org/
> [16] http://www.sugarlabs.org/
> [17] http://unleashkids.org/
> [18] mailto:Sugar-devel at lists.sugarlabs.org
> [19] http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
> [20] mailto:Sugar-devel at lists.sugarlabs.org
> [21] http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
> [22] mailto:tony_anderson at usa.net
> [23] mailto:Sugar-devel at lists.sugarlabs.org
> [24] http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
> [25] mailto:walter.bender at gmail.com
> [26] mailto:Sugar-devel at lists.sugarlabs.org
> [27] http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
> [28] mailto:holt at laptop.org
> [29] mailto:walter.bender at gmail.com
> [30] https://github.com/llaske/sugarizer/issues/48
> [31] http://www.sugarlabs.org/
> [32] http://www.sugarlabs.org/
> [33] http://unleashkids.org/
> [34] mailto:Sugar-devel at lists.sugarlabs.org
> [35] http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
> [36] https://www.postbox-inc.com/?utm_source=email&utm_medium=siglink&utm_campaign=reach

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


-- 
James Cameron
http://quozl.netrek.org/


More information about the Sugar-devel mailing list