[sugar] License your bundles, please!
christoph.derndorfer at gmail.com
Fri Sep 12 04:47:42 EDT 2008
On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 5:41 PM, C. Scott Ananian <cscott at laptop.org> wrote:
> John Gilmore has been pushing us to get our licensing ducks in a row.
> The one remaining problem has been activities and content bundles: we
> can't legally distribute bundles that don't have a clear statement of
> I have added documentation to:
> on a new 'license=' field in the activity.info and library.info files,
> closely modelled after the License: field in RPM packages.
> Now I need your help! Could you all look at any activity and content
> bundles you maintain, add an appropriate license statement if there
> isn't one already (comments at the top of source files, or a COPYING
> file, or a statement in the README, etc) and the add a 'license='
> field to your activity.info or library.info documenting the license
> Commenting on http://dev.laptop.org/ticket/8411 when you've done so
> will help me keep track of how we're doing. We will not be able to
> ship any activities in our G1G1 8.2 image which do not have
> appropriate license information -- since mstone's plan-of-the-moment
> is to make the first release candidate for this next week, the
> situation is pretty urgent. Also, we will probably need to remove any
> activity bundles hosted on the dev.laptop.org wiki which do not have
> statements of license at one point. Your help is appreciated!
Wouldn't Morgan and his recent survey of activity authors be a valuable
resource to quickly and directly get in touch with as many activity authors
> ( http://cscott.net/ )
> Sugar mailing list
> Sugar at lists.laptop.org
e-mail: christoph at olpcnews.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Devel