[Sugar-devel] licensing question

Alex Perez aperez at alexperez.com
Thu May 24 13:56:19 EDT 2018 

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.

> Tony Anderson <mailto:tony_anderson at usa.net>
> 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
> Sugar-devel at lists.sugarlabs.org
> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
> James Cameron <mailto:quozl at laptop.org>
> 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<[1]holt at laptop.org>  wrote:
>>
>>          On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 6:41 PM, Walter Bender<[2]
>>          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]https://github.com/llaske/sugarizer/issues/48
>>
>>              --
>>              Walter Bender
>>              Sugar Labs
>>              [4]http://www.sugarlabs.org
>>
>>              --
>>              [5]Unsung Heroes of OLPC, interviewed live @ [6]http://
>>              unleashkids.org !
>>
>>
>>
>>      _______________________________________________
>>      Sugar-devel mailing list
>>      [7]Sugar-devel at lists.sugarlabs.org
>>      [8]http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
>>
>> References:
>>
>> [1] mailto:holt at laptop.org
>> [2] mailto:walter.bender at gmail.com
>> [3] https://github.com/llaske/sugarizer/issues/48
>> [4] http://www.sugarlabs.org/
>> [5] http://www.sugarlabs.org/
>> [6] http://unleashkids.org/
>> [7] mailto:Sugar-devel at lists.sugarlabs.org
>> [8] http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Sugar-devel mailing list
>> Sugar-devel at lists.sugarlabs.org
>> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
>
>
> Tony Anderson <mailto:tony_anderson at usa.net>
> 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
> Sugar-devel at lists.sugarlabs.org
> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
> Walter Bender <mailto:walter.bender at gmail.com>
> May 23, 2018 at 4:46 PM
> Thank you!
>
> _______________________________________________
> Sugar-devel mailing list
> Sugar-devel at lists.sugarlabs.org
> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
> Adam Holt <mailto:holt at laptop.org>
> May 23, 2018 at 4:03 PM
> On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 6:41 PM, Walter Bender 
> <walter.bender at gmail.com <mailto: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] https://github.com/llaske/sugarizer/issues/48
>     <https://github.com/llaske/sugarizer/issues/48>
>
>     -- 
>     Walter Bender
>     Sugar Labs
>     http://www.sugarlabs.org
>
>     -- 
>     Unsung Heroes of OLPC, interviewed live @
>     <http://www.sugarlabs.org>http://unleashkids.org !
>
> _______________________________________________
> Sugar-devel mailing list
> Sugar-devel at lists.sugarlabs.org
> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel

-- 
Sent from Postbox 
<https://www.postbox-inc.com/?utm_source=email&utm_medium=siglink&utm_campaign=reach>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/sugar-devel/attachments/20180524/7fb4f1b9/attachment.html>

More information about the Sugar-devel mailing list