[Sugar-devel] Licensing of the javascript libraries
Sebastian Silva
sebastian at fuentelibre.org
Fri Jun 7 21:14:42 EDT 2013
Hi,
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.
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.
I checked and it turns out Apache 2.0 license is compatible with GPLv3
(but incompatible with GPLv2):
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#apache2
Regards,
Sebastian
El 07/06/13 19:38, Daniel Narvaez escribió:
> 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?
>
> Anyway even on gplv3 I think the situation is pretty different if
> nothing else because one of major goals of the web activities work is
> to bring activities on devices where tivoization might be an issue.
>
> On Saturday, 8 June 2013, Daniel Narvaez wrote:
>
> Yes I think it's very different because using GPLv2 would mean we
> can't use Apache licensed libraries, which are a big percentage of
> available js libraries.
>
> On Saturday, 8 June 2013, Gonzalo Odiard wrote:
>
> We already had this discussion two years ago,
> is the situation with the javascript activities different to need
> start this discussion again?
>
> Gonzalo
>
> On 06/14/2011 05:42 PM, Luke Faraone wrote:
> > This is a vote to determine the suggestedlicense for future releases
> > ofSugar. 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
> Sugar Labs, Systems
> âoe0/00:luke at sugarlabs.org
> I: lfaraone onirc.freenode.net <http://irc.freenode.net/>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 8:59 PM, Daniel Narvaez
> <dwnarvaez at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Well permission to double license really.
>
>
> On Saturday, 8 June 2013, Daniel Narvaez 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?
>
> 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
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl-java.html
> 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 basically:
>
> 1 Copyleft VS non copyleft. I think
> copyleft has advantages and practically no
> real disadvantages for eta, xi and omega.
>
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> Sugar-devel mailing list
> Sugar-devel at lists.sugarlabs.org
> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
>
>
>
>
> --
> Daniel Narvaez
>
>
>
> --
> Daniel Narvaez
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20130607/9065f624/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Sugar-devel
mailing list