[Top][All Lists]

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

[Savannah-hackers-public] Licensing issues

From: Nicodemo Alvaro
Subject: [Savannah-hackers-public] Licensing issues
Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2008 23:01:44 -0500

I am trying to help the projects to get registered. I have a few
questions about this.

The 'How To Get Your Project Approved Quickly' [1] article says "Use a
license compatible with the GNU GPL, and use the 'or any later
version' formulation for the GPL." The GPL license does not contain
this text, the copying permission statement does though.

I think it would be more appropriate if the article to said "that it
is needed to have the words 'or any later version'  formulation for
the GPL, in the copying permission statement in all your source

I think the article needs to define source files. Would non-compiling
scripts, such as shell scripts, be described as source files. Most
people wouldn't consider it because they are scripts. I am not sure
all scripts are compiled, yes, bash has an interpreter, but is it
needed for a script to have a license notice to it? Or should all sets
of instructions to the computers be defined as source code? I guess
input files, such as the makefile, would be different from that.


reply via email to

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