<div>Cool. Maybe since you are talking to the SFC already you could ask how to get the contributors permission? I wonder if the mailing list should be cced for example, so that we get a record of it.</div><div> </div>On Saturday, 8 June 2013, Walter Bender wrote: <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 7:58 PM, Daniel Narvaez <<a href="javascript:;" onclick="_e(event, 'cvml', 'dwnarvaez@gmail.com')">dwnarvaez@gmail.com</a>> 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? I am happy to reach out to Marco, Tomeu and Eben. -walter > > 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 wrote: >> >> 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. >> >> On Saturday, 8 June 2013, Daniel Narvaez wrote: >>> >>> 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. >>> >>> 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. >>> >>> On Friday, 3 May 2013, Daniel Narvaez wrote: >>>> >>>> Hello, >>>> >>>> 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 :) >>>> >>>> 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. >>>> >>>> --- >>>> >>>> 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. >>>> >>>> (L)GPLv2 >>>> >>>> * Copyleft. Requires all the modifications to be made freely available. >>>> * Incompatible with Apache. Pretty bad, a lot of code already licensed >>>> that way and growing fast (especially in the javascript world). >>>> >>>> (L)GPLv3 >>>> >>>> * Copyleft >>>> * Compatiible with Apache. >>>> * 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? >>>> * Latest version. Better wording etc. Patents protection. >>>> * We can distribute the sugar icons under LGPLv3, without requiring any >>>> relicensing, because of the "or later" clause. >>>> * 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 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. >>>> >>>> Apache >>>> >>>> * 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). >>>> * It seems to be the best permissive license because of the patents >>>> protection. It's the most popular at least. >>>> >>>> So I think there two choices basical> _______________________________________________ > Sugar-devel mailing list > <a href="javascript:;" onclick="_e(event, 'cvml', 'Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org')">Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org</a> > <a href="http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel" target="_blank">http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel</a> > -- Walter Bender Sugar Labs <a href="http://www.sugarlabs.org" target="_blank">http://www.sugarlabs.org</a> </blockquote> -- Daniel Narvaez