Talk:Licensing: Difference between revisions
incorporating Bert's suggestion re GNU language |
m add "me too" |
||
| (7 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
'''DRAFT of new Licensing text as per the discussion at the 9 June 2011 SLOBs meeting''' | '''DRAFT of new Licensing text as per the discussion at the 9 June 2011 SLOBs meeting''' | ||
Sugar Labs adheres to the principles of Free Software. An [http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html overview of these principles] is | Sugar Labs adheres to the principles of Free Software. An [http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html overview of these principles] is provided by the Free Software Foundation (FSF). The Open Source Initiative (OSI) has a [http://opensource.org/docs/osd set of guidelines for Free and Open Source software] that characterize the intentions of our community. | ||
All software and content distributed by Sugar Labs, including activity bundles uploaded to http://activities.sugarlabs.org, must be released under a license that conforms to the principles and guidelines referred to above. | All software and content distributed by Sugar Labs, including activity bundles uploaded to http://activities.sugarlabs.org, must be released under a license that conforms to the principles and guidelines referred to above. | ||
You may use any license on the Fedora Project's [http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#Good_Licenses list of | You may use any license on the Fedora Project's [http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#Good_Licenses list of Good Licenses] or the FSF's [http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html list of Free Software Licenses]. If you wish to use a license not on one of these two lists and believe that it fits our guidelines, please contact the [[Oversight Board]]. | ||
---- | ---- | ||
| Line 25: | Line 25: | ||
:Sorry. I realize I had the wrong link. Should be http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html which includes many non-GNU licenses. --[[User:Walter|Walter]] 09:21, 24 June 2011 (EDT) | :Sorry. I realize I had the wrong link. Should be http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html which includes many non-GNU licenses. --[[User:Walter|Walter]] 09:21, 24 June 2011 (EDT) | ||
:The problem with the Fedora link was a typo. Should link directly to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#Good_Licenses now. --[[User:Walter|Walter]] 09:23, 24 June 2011 (EDT) | :The problem with the Fedora link was a typo. Should link directly to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#Good_Licenses now. --[[User:Walter|Walter]] 09:23, 24 June 2011 (EDT) | ||
:: Maybe just to be explicit, write "Good Licenses" instead of "acceptable licenses"? [[User:Bert|Bert]] 09:54, 24 June 2011 (EDT) | |||
::: Yes. I agree... consistency. --[[User:Walter|Walter]] 10:02, 24 June 2011 (EDT) | |||
''Another nit pick: I find the second link to the GNU.org website distracting and unnecessary. I'd replace ''"is found on the [http://gnu.org GNU.org website]"'' with ''"is provided by the FSF"''. The FSF is mentioned again later, so it's better to use the same name. [[User:Bert|Bert]] 10:04, 24 June 2011 (EDT) | |||
:Nitpicking is right... but I made the change :) --[[User:Walter|Walter]] 10:51, 24 June 2011 (EDT) | |||
:: That's better, though I'd remove that link altogether. It adds nothing to the official Sugar Labs Licensing page. My suggestion was "is provided by the FSF", with no embedded link at all. [[User:Bert|Bert]] 11:11, 24 June 2011 (EDT) | |||
:::Sure... less is more. But I decided to spell out our acronyms when first used (and OSD->OSI) :P --[[User:Walter|Walter]] 11:19, 24 June 2011 (EDT) | |||
---- | |||
+1, having Fedora list of good licences will simplify workflow on ASLO to make it automatic, ie, activities-testing.sugarlabs.org [[Activity_Library/Editors/Policy/Licensing|sees]] to the {{Code|licence}} tag in the {{Code|activitiy.info}} to accept/reject any new upload. [[User:Alsroot|alsroot]] 09:32, 24 June 2011 (EDT) | |||
+1 FWIW [[User:MartinDengler|MartinDengler]] 20:48, 25 June 2011 (EDT) | |||