<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Hi,<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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. <br>
<br>
I checked and it turns out Apache 2.0 license is compatible with
GPLv3 (but incompatible with GPLv2):<br>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html;
charset=ISO-8859-1">
<a href="http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#apache2">http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#apache2</a><br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
Sebastian<br>
<br>
El 07/06/13 19:38, Daniel Narvaez escribió:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CANTHhvZaDdfF5Arz0W6xnVy_-QrG_9P+B_0+fEcGK3-MBasBgw@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">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?
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Anyway even on gplv3 I think the situation is pretty
different if nothing else<span></span> because one of
major goals of the web activities work is to bring activities on
devices where tivoization might be an issue.<br>
<br>
On Saturday, 8 June 2013, Daniel Narvaez wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Yes I think
it's very <span></span>different because using GPLv2 would
mean we can't use Apache licensed libraries, which are a big
percentage of available js libraries.<br>
<br>
On Saturday, 8 June 2013, Gonzalo Odiard wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr">We already had this discussion two years ago,
<div>is the situation with the javascript activities
different to need </div>
<div>start this discussion again?</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Gonzalo</div>
<div>
<pre style="white-space:pre-wrap">On 06/14/2011 05:42 PM, Luke Faraone wrote:
> This is a vote to determine the suggested <span>license</span> for future releases
> of <span>Sugar</span>. 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
<span>Sugar</span> Labs, Systems
✉: <a moz-do-not-send="true">luke@sugarlabs.org</a>
I: lfaraone on <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://irc.freenode.net/" target="_blank">irc.freenode.net</a>
</pre>
</div>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 8:59 PM,
Daniel Narvaez <span dir="ltr"><<a
moz-do-not-send="true">dwnarvaez@gmail.com</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Well
permission to double license really.
<div>
<div><span></span><br>
<br>
On Saturday, 8 June 2013, Daniel Narvaez wrote:<br>
<blockquote style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc
solid;padding-left:1ex">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?
<div>
<br>
</div>
<div>People that contributed but doesn't seem to
be involved with the project anymore.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Eben Eliason</div>
<div>Marco Pesenti Gritti</div>
<div>Tomeu Vizoso<span></span></div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Still around</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Scott Ananian</div>
benzea
<div>erikos</div>
<div>Martin Abente</div>
<div>Walter Bender</div>
<div>godiard</div>
<div>Manuel Quinones</div>
<div><br>
<div>From the git log of the icons dir.<br>
<br>
On Saturday, 8 June 2013, Daniel Narvaez
wrote:<br>
<blockquote style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc
solid;padding-left:1ex">
I'm still undecided really but since it's
important to make a call soon, my vote
goes for Apache, both for sugar-web and
for activities we develop.<span></span><br>
<br>
On Saturday, 8 June 2013, Daniel Narvaez
wrote:<br>
<blockquote style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc
solid;padding-left:1ex"><font><span
style="line-height:normal;background-color:rgba(255,255,255,0)">We
really need to make a call here, we
start to have a sizeable amount of
code and the first release is near.
I tend to think gplv2 is not an
option because of the apache
incompatibility. I would go for
Apache if we want to avoid issues
with anti-tivoization, otherwise
gplv3.</span></font><br>
<br>
To point out a concrete problem we could
have with gpl3... My understanding is
that you could not ship an activity
based on sugar-web in the apple store,
at least including the lib locally. I
suppose it would be fine if you loaded
it from a server, but then you
need security restrictions if you
implement any kind of system
integration.<span></span><br>
<br>
On Friday, 3 May 2013, Daniel Narvaez
wrote:<br>
<blockquote style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc
solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>Hello,<br>
<br>
we need to decide how to license
the new javascript libraries. I am
mostly clueless about the topic
and I'm honestly scared to start
this thread, please be gentle :)<br>
<br>
</div>
Following is the rationale I came up
with for Agora. I think it probably
applies to the sugar-html libraries
too. Feedback would be very welcome
as we are no expert.<br>
<br>
---<br>
<br>
I spent some time trying to decide
which license is better for the
various part of Agora. It's an hard
and important decision, I'm not a
lawyer and not even an expert but we
need to make a call. My
understanding is that a license is
better than nothing.<br>
<br>
(L)GPLv2<br>
<br>
* Copyleft. Requires all the
modifications to be made freely
available.<br>
* Incompatible with Apache. Pretty
bad, a lot of code already licensed
that way and growing fast
(especially in the javascript
world).<br>
<br>
(L)GPLv3<br>
<br>
* Copyleft<br>
* Compatiible with Apache.<br>
* Anti-tivoization clause. Mixed
bag, would it prevent us to run on
hardware we are interested in? One
problematic case I can think of is
distributing an activity through the
Apple store. We wouldn't be able to
do that. Though people could still
install the activity as a web app,
from the browser. Maybe that's good
enough?<br>
* Latest version. Better wording
etc. Patents protection.<br>
* We can distribute the sugar icons
under LGPLv3, without requiring any
relicensing, because of the "or
later" clause.<br>
* My understanding is that if xi-*
is LGPL, proprietary applications
could still use it without making
modifications. The situation is not
as clear as for the traditional
linked libraries case but from <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl-java.html"
target="_blank">http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl-java.html</a>
I'd think we are fine.<br>
<br>
Apache<br>
<br>
* Non copyleft. It would be more
friendly to companies that might
want to reuse code in their
products. But is that likely to
happen? Both xi and omega are pretty
agora specific. Still I think it's a
good license to use for more generic
bits that we might develop (I used
it for some python helpers I'm using
in eta for example).<br>
* It seems to be the best permissive
license because of the patents
protection. It's the most popular at
least.<br>
<br>
So I think there two choices
basically:<br>
<br>
1 Copyleft VS non copyleft. I think
copyleft has advantages and
practically no real disadvantages
for eta, xi and omega.<br>
<br>
2 GPLv2 VS GPLv3. Compatibility with
Apache would be good (maybe not
essential though? We could still use
apache libraries I would think, just
not freely cut/paste code).
Anti-tivoization is tricky, I
honestly can't make strong points
one way or another. While I was
initially sympathetic wi</div>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>
Sugar-devel mailing list<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true">Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel"
target="_blank">http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel</a><br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
-- <br>
Daniel Narvaez<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<br>
-- <br>
Daniel Narvaez<br>
<br>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
Sugar-devel mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org">Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel">http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>