Talk:Vision proposal 2016: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 22:05, 19 April 2016 view source Davelab6 (talk \| contribs) Administrators 534 edits Reply to Quozl ← Older edit		Revision as of 00:12, 20 April 2016 view source Quozl (talk \| contribs) Administrators 1,290 edits →GNU General Public License only? Newer edit →
Line 36:		Line 36:

	::: No, my understanding is that Sugar is GPL and requires Activities to be GPL compatible. Am I incorrect? :) [[User:Davelab6\|Davelab6]] ([[User talk:Davelab6\|talk]])		::: No, my understanding is that Sugar is GPL and requires Activities to be GPL compatible. Am I incorrect? :) [[User:Davelab6\|Davelab6]] ([[User talk:Davelab6\|talk]])

			:::: Yes, because [[Sugar_Labs/FAQ#What_are_the_principles_that_guide_Sugar_Labs.3F\|individual activities may be under different licenses]], which could be GPL incompatible. Also, [http://activities.sugarlabs.org/en-US/sugar/pages/developer_faq#license activities.sugarlabs.org] supports other license types. Seems vague overall. It doesn't seem to be clear if a learner can use a GPL incompatible license for an activity they write and share with their friends. My opinion is that a learner should be free to use an incompatible license. COPYING file in sugar-toolkit-gtk3 does say GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL), which permits linking from a body of work that is incompatibly licensed. --[[User:Quozl\|Quozl]] ([[User talk:Quozl\|talk]]) 01:12, 20 April 2016 (EDT)