[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Savannah-hackers-public] Re: Savannah Documentation

From: Sylvain Beucler
Subject: [Savannah-hackers-public] Re: Savannah Documentation
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2006 18:00:40 +0100
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.11+cvs20060126


Sorry for the delay.

By now those projects were 'taken over' by kickino so you can see what
the answer was.

Here's the procedure I suggest we use: assign a few project to you (I
added you to the administration group), and then send a complete
answer to several admins, as if you were directly replying to the
project submitter. tizzef proceeds that way.

Then one of the admins should reply in reasonable time and see with
you what needs to be checked.

Feel free to add any point you think would help checking the project
fast (eg. links to dependencies licenses, points that looks
suspicious, etc).


On Mon, Mar 13, 2006 at 10:09:51PM +0000, Steven Robson wrote:
> On Wednesday 08 March 2006 23:47, you wrote:
> > This documentation (attached) is being moved to
> >
> >
> > However, the chapter about project approvals remains the most complete
> > reference.
> >
> > So I ask you to read that chapter, but you can read the rest if you
> > want, just keeping in mind that it's somewhat outdated :)
> >
> >
> > Feel free to have a look at the related FAQ (how to get it approved
> > quickly) as well.
> Hi Sylvain
> I read through the docs, and then had a look at some of the pending projects 
> that had no admin name attached to them. This is what I found:
> This depends on software of unknown license. I was unable to find WinAVR or 
> BasicStamp licenses to check them out. No code is supplied. 
> The tarball contains a number of source files with no legal headers. Some of 
> the files with legal notices have the wrong FSF address. Good description 
> though. 
> This project seems fine for acceptance as far as I can tell, assuming their 
> special license is GPL compatible (contained in the tarball). 
> They seem to like "Open Software", but no mention of free software. No code 
> is 
> supplied. Description is poor, I'm not certain what the project does. 
> Just wondered if I was going the right way about it. 
> Steven

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]