[Sur] Is Project Ceibal violating the GNU General Public License?
andresambrois en gmail.com
Lun Ago 24 12:57:55 EDT 2009
On Monday 24 August 2009 10:11:54 am Walter Bender wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 3:48 AM, John Gilmore<gnu en toad.com> wrote:
> > Re: [Sugar-devel] RFH - Journal corruption reports fom 8.2.1 users in Uy
> >> Remember that Ceibal XOs have root access locked-down. And I recently
> >> found out that since the key-delegation stuff was implemented, we can't
> >> request developer keys. Not from OLPC at least, and LATU is not
> >> providing that service that I know...
> > Could someone please clarify this?
> According to Ceilbal (24-08-09):
> "We have delivered developer keys in the past, and we will deliver them to
> the owner of the machine upon request."
> Therefore, I do not think that there is a violation of the GPL.
I wrote to Ceibal asking for information and this is what they replied:
Debido al sistema de seguridad incorporado en la XO, el Plan Ceibal no brinda
la clave de desarrollador. Esto se debe, a que una persona con acceso a la
clave podría desactivar la seguridad de la máquina.
Cualquier otra consulta, no dudes en volver a comunicarte."
Because of the security system built into the XO, Plan Ceibal doesn't provide
developer keys. This is because a person with access to the key could
deactivate the security of the machine.
Don't hesitate in contacting us for any other questions.
> > It sounds like Project Ceibal is explicitly violating the GNU General
> > Public License on much or all of the software that it ships:
> > * It provides binaries without source code, and without a written
> > offer of source code.
> > * It provides binaries in a physical form (laptop) which is
> > protected against modification by the end-user, so that those
> > users cannot replace the GPLv3-licensed software on the laptop
> > with later versions. More than 20 packages shipped are GPLv3
> > licensed, as of 12 months ago, including the Coreutils (most
> > shell commands), tar and cpio (used for software updates), and
> > gettext (internationalization). GPLv3 requires that the relevant
> > passwords or keys must be supplied to the end user -- including
> > both the "developer key" and the root password.
> > * Some programs are modified, but the modified versions are not
> > marked to distinguish them from the original GPL-licensed
> > programs.
> > There are other less important violations as well (most are documented
> > at bugs.laptop.org; search for "GPL").
> > I would be happy to learn that the children receiving these laptops
> > have full access to source code, ability to upgrade their laptops
> > at will, and can tell modified from unmodified software. Please let
> > me know what is really happening in the schools of Uruguay.
> > John Gilmore
> > _______________________________________________
> > Devel mailing list
> > Devel en lists.laptop.org
> > http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
More information about the olpc-Sur