Arthur Pemberton wrote:
On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 2:31 PM, Robin Laing
<Robin.Laing@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I participated in the OLPC buy 1 give 1 program to help it grow for two
reasons.
One to get the OLPC into the public and used in more places.
Two, to give a kick to MS and Intel over the classmate.
One thing that has come out of the OLPC and the EeePC is forcing MS to keep
providing support for XP which they don't want to remain in production.
When I first read about XP on the OLPC, I believed that this was a bad issue
but at least there was a dual boot option. Now that I read that the dual
boot is not going to happen, then I cannot support the project as the idea
of free and open is totally lost.
My kids liked the Sugar interface but there needs to be more tools to make
the OLPC useful. Putting Sugar onto Windows could be a good move to get
more recognition of OpenSource into the public.
I have not looked at the license for Sugar but I hope it is GPLv3.
I am still not sure what way to think but as long as it keeps MS looking
over their shoulder at these small laptops, I am happy.
It's GPL, I am guessing v2 though. I doubt MS would go near it if it
was GPLv3 with its new patent invalidation clauses.
In that case it needs to under the GPLv3 ASAP if its not already. But
who is the original licensor?who technically owns the code?
--
I am sure you might have guessed my name by now....
On the eighth day he said "There shall be no rest for the weary."
On the ninth day he farted, and it smelled like sulphur.
--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
