Web   ·   Wiki   ·   Activities   ·   Blog   ·   Lists   ·   Chat   ·   Meeting   ·   Bugs   ·   Git   ·   Translate   ·   Archive   ·   People   ·   Donate

#sugar-meeting meeting, 2011-04-21 20:05:05

Minutes | Index | Today     Channels | Search | Join

All times shown according to UTC.

Time Nick Message
20:05 meeting Meeting started Thu Apr 21 20:05:05 2011 UTC. The chair is bernie. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
20:05 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #endmeeting
20:05 bernie #topic GPLv3
20:06 alsroot: what do you mean, that we should delegate the GPLv3 decision to the development team?
20:06 dogi has quit IRC
20:06 icarito bernie, what exactly should the board decide? should we recommend a license in the wiki? should we relabel all modules that say GPLv2 and later to say GPLv3 and later? Should we do an announcement?
20:07 cjb I'd agree that the decision should definitely come from a larger community than the seven of us (who are all developers and not deployers, etc etc)
20:07 but I think most people will probably be positive about it
20:07 icarito cjb, actually i feel its an upgrade, people developed v3 of our license to further protect our freedoms and we should adopt it
20:07 bernie icarito: yes, we say in several places that sugar is GPLv2+... if we approve today, we could start updating documentation here and there, and ask (not impose) the various maintainers to migrate their modules to GPLv3.
20:07 cjb icarito: right, but my point is that it shouldn't matter what we feel, because we don't represent everyone.
20:08 alsroot bernie: I mean does "v2+" mean that such modules might be just technically "retitled" to v3+
20:08 mchua Ugh, I'm sorry, folks - my internet connection died so i drove out to the office to recover connectivity.
20:08 has another meeting starting any moment now, though...
20:08 reads up
20:08 bernie alsroot: yes, there's no legal requirement
20:09 cjb maybe we send a mail to IAEP, subject "ANNOUNCE: Moving to GPLv3+" where we say that we're going to start using the v2+ clause to switch to v3+ and explain that we don't think it has much of an impact of anyone but that some developers think it more accurately represents their intentions?
20:09 and then we give it two weeks for feedback or something
20:09 icarito bernie you have my emphatic +1 on recommending and documenting sugar as gplv3+
20:09 bernie icarito: i think the board could give a clear message that will help the transition happen smoothly... what would happen if 2 maintainers switched and 1 didn't? modules would become incompatible ;-)
20:09 walterbender has quit IRC
20:09 cjb ouch :)
20:09 bernie no, wait, that's not true... modules would remain compatible in any case.
20:09 cjb ah, good
20:10 mchua bernie: to answer your question quickly, it *doesn't* and shouldn't need to be more complicated than that (finances)
20:10 bernie it's just that the entire thing would have to be distributed under the GPLv3+
20:10 icarito +1
20:10 i already license what I code with GPLv3
20:10 cjb bernie: so we'd need to let all the distros know, I guess
20:10 bernie mchua: k. i appreciate you trying to figure out our financial quagmire :)
20:10 mchua bernie: we just need to know (1) who people ask and (2) what info they need to provide when they ask and (3) where the final "approved" recording takes place, so there's somewhere public that's a record of how much $ we have and spent on what.
20:11 bernie: it's not a quagmire, it just needs to be written down. I estimate it'll take me <45m tonight after dinner. ;)
20:11 bernie cjb: yes, indeed.
20:11 mchua has to head out to a mtg now
20:11 waves
20:11 mchua is now known as mchua_afk
20:11 icarito bye mchua_afk
20:11 alsroot is for: since v2+ means also v3+, we can make a statement that core mouldes are moving to v3+ in a week or so (to collect feedback) and ask other activities maints do thesame
20:12 walterbender <walterbender!~webchat@jita.sugarlabs.org> has joined #sugar-meeting
20:12 cjb the activities aren't considered linked anyway
20:12 'cause that part of Sugar is LGPL
20:12 what are we going to do about that?
20:12 bernie mchua_afk: i agree with you about the records being *public*. so you're right... iaep or trac would be better than private emails. The only point which needs clearing is *who* is going to approve requests.
20:13 cjb: sugar-toolkit is LGPLv2+
20:13 cjb bernie: 'k.  so that would move to LGPLv3+ at the same time, presumably?
20:13 bernie alsroot: is sweets also LGPLv2+?
20:13 alsroot bernie: nope, GPL3+. polyol is LGPL3+
20:13 bernie cjb: yes, I forgot about that. sugar-toolkit should become LGPLv3+
20:14 cjb bernie: cool
20:14 icarito i assume we're using LGPL to facillitate non-free activities?
20:14 cjb yes
20:14 or just incompatibly free ones
20:15 icarito if sugar wanted to make a clear statement of the role of free software in education we would use strong copyleft
20:15 bernie alsroot: side note, when one creates a project on gitorious, Academic Public License gets pre-selected... which is a dangerous default. we should probably make it GPLv3+ if we approve the motion.
20:16 alsroot bernie: yeah, will change it
20:16 cjb icarito: feel free to propose moving sugar-toolkit from LGPL to GPL on iaep, though that *would* require contacting everyone who's written it.
20:16 icarito since i'm not the copyright owner I cant make the call but i would like it
20:16 dogi <dogi!~nemo@c-65-96-166-32.hsd1.ma.comcast.net> has joined #sugar-meeting
20:16 bernie icarito: we used LGPLv2+ in sugar-toolkit to allow activities which are free software, but not compatible with the GPL
20:16 cjb yeah, that's my recollection too
20:17 bernie icarito: besides, Scratch which is not free software works with sugar anyway (there's no requirement to use sugar-toolkit)
20:17 icarito sideeffect being we have non-free activities
20:17 cjb bernie: aw, I thought they fixed that
20:17 icarito ok
20:17 bernie icarito: I would tend to agree with you that having everything under the GPLv3 would be ideal, but I'm afraid it would be too controversial at this time.
20:18 cjb bernie: http://activities.sugarlabs.or[…]ons/license/30244 is the license attached to the latest version
20:18 and it looks GPL-compatible to me
20:18 icarito thanks for the background i know we're a bit OT
20:19 bernie cjb: i asked recently, they won't fix it because they have some crazy market strategy of theirs that in their mind requires that non-free clause.
20:19 cjb bernie: I don't know what non-free clause you're talking about.
20:19 because it is not mentioned on that page
20:20 bernie cjb: they don't allow modification!
20:20 icarito bernie is the clause the MIT advertising clause? If the software is published or distributed, the following statement shall be displayed in a visible place on a website or on distribution media such as CDs:
20:20  Scratch is developed by the Lifelong Kindergarten group at the MIT Media Lab.
20:20  See http://scratch.mit.edu
20:20 cjb bernie: read the link!
20:20 bernie: it's lame to have someone send you a link and then you keep arguing as if you didn't bother to look at it.
20:20 bernie cjb: because otherwise people could create competing versions of the language, or make scratch upload to a competing community.
20:20 cjb: this is what I was told at the Media Lab.
20:20 icarito bernie, ouch!
20:21 bernie cjb: you seem to have missed my comment: *** they don't allow modification ***
20:21 cjb: only redistribution
20:21 icarito freedom 1 and freedom 3
20:21 cjb, i read the link
20:21 cjb bernie: ohh
20:22 bernie: I didn't see that license as prohibiting modification :/
20:22 sorry
20:22 in fact, I don't see how it does?
20:22 icarito cjb, it does not allow it
20:22 bernie cjb: everything is prohibited unless the copyright holder grants permission... so modification is prohibited.
20:23 icarito right to use, copy, publish, or distribute copies of the Software,
20:23 cjb man, what a confusing license
20:24 bernie cjb: they try to hide the fact that it's non-free.
20:24 cjb that sucks
20:24 icarito bernie, that even sounds dishonest
20:25 bernie icarito: I was told that the person in charge of Scratch at the Media Lab is not really an expert of free software.
20:25 cjb bernie: we would have the right to distribute the pristine source + patch files, though
20:25 and the user could combine them.  but that's awkward.
20:26 icarito i'd suggest we should stop distributing scratch in this case
20:26 cjb you could make rpm apply the patch as a %post :)
20:26 ok
20:26 bernie cjb: the so-called homebrew copyright infringement :-)
20:26 cjb anyway.  I think the switch sounds fine but that we should tell people we're going to do it before we do it.
20:26 bernie bah, shall we flash out a motion for the GPLv3?
20:26 cjb and give them a chance to object and comment, so that it doesn't sound like we're arbitrarily making decisions for the whole community
20:27 something like.. send e-mail to IAEP today announcing that we want to do it, wait two weeks, then vote
20:27 bernie cjb: yes, i agree with you. who shall we announce it to? fedora, ubuntu and opensuse?
20:27 cjb we could have the vote in UY maybe :-)
20:27 oh, no, they can hear about it after
20:27 I mean to the _Sugar_ community
20:27 bernie cjb: we'll target Sugar 0.94?
20:27 cjb which we are not the only members of
20:27 sure
20:28 bernie cjb: didn't we already start a thread on iaep?
20:28 icarito i thought we were supposed to represent htem
20:28 cjb icarito: sure, but representing them involves asking what they want.
20:28 rather than telling them
20:28 bernie cjb: it's already become a flame :-)
20:28 icarito it means they trust us as well
20:29 cjb there is no thread on iaep that announces or proposes a move to GPLv3, as far as I've seen
20:29 just a bullet point in the slobs minutes
20:29 bernie cjb: walter's post to iaep is meant to be an RFC on the GPLv3 proposal, right?
20:30 cjb bernie: It clearly doesn't do that explicitly.
20:30 bernie cjb: never mind that the thread was rapidly derailed...
20:30 cjb yes, unfortuante
20:31 I'm suggesting a mail with a subject line of "ANNOUNCE: Sugar moving to GPLv3+" that explains how we're doing it and a proposal for when it'll happen
20:31 to iaep and sugar-devel
20:31 icarito friends I have to go but I'm uneasy about us distributing scratch
20:31 bernie cjb: that should come after we approve, no?
20:31 icarito i might bring this up over email
20:31 bernie you have my +1 on GPLv3
20:31 cjb bernie: no, there'd be a week or two for comments
20:31 bernie icarito: ok bye
20:31 cjb icarito: oh.  you're right, we're not supposed to distribute non-free on ASLO.
20:32 bernie cjb: so the subject should be more like: "RFC: Moving Sugar to GPLv3+"
20:32 cjb yeah
20:32 I used ANNOUNCE because I'm worried people will skim over it
20:32 but RFC is fine too
20:32 bernie cjb: i think we explicitly closed one eye for Scratch because it's already so popular among children using the XO.
20:33 cjb bernie: well, we clearly didn't explicitly do so, since there is a motion banning non-free activities on ASLO, and there's no motion letting Scratch in regardless
20:33 maybe we did it implicitly
20:33 bernie cjb: would you like to open the dances? or shall I?
20:33 cjb bernie: please do :-)
20:33 bernie cjb: (I like your writing style better than mine)
20:33 cjb: ok, then i will.
20:33 cjb thanks
20:35 bernie ok, shall we endmeeting?
20:36 3
20:36 cjb sounds good, thanks
20:36 bernie 2
20:36 1
20:36 bye
20:36 #endmeeting
20:36 meeting Meeting ended Thu Apr 21 20:36:53 2011 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. (v 0.1.4)
20:36 Minutes: http://meeting.sugarlabs.org/s[…]-21T20:05:05.html
20:36 Log:     http://meeting.sugarlabs.org/s[…]11-04-21T20:05:05

Minutes | Index | Today     Channels | Search | Join

Powered by ilbot/Modified.