[Sugar-devel] Licensing of the javascript libraries

[Daniel Narvaez]

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.

On Saturday, 8 June 2013, Walter Bender wrote:

> On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 7:58 PM, Daniel Narvaez <dwnarvaez at gmail.com<javascript:;>>
> 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
> >>>> 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 basical>
> _______________________________________________
> > Sugar-devel mailing list
> > Sugar-devel at lists.sugarlabs.org <javascript:;>
> > http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Walter Bender
> Sugar Labs
> http://www.sugarlabs.org
>


-- 
Daniel Narvaez
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/sugar-devel/attachments/20130608/2dece113/attachment.html>