[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