Re: [Savannah-hackers-public] Licensing issues

[Sylvain Beucler]

Hi Nicodemo,

On Sat, Nov 29, 2008 at 08:00:43PM -0500, Nicodemo Alvaro wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 5:45 PM, Karl Berry <address@hidden> wrote:
> >    While this is right, many people do not add notices to makefiles
> >    (especially Makefile.am's), changelogs and headers.  I don't think we
> >    should be picky about these cases,
> >
> > Personally, I completely agree with you.  But my understanding is that
> > rms insists we be this picky, for the sake of "educating" submitters
> > about these issues -- every source (non-derived) file should be covered.
> > (And this is a major reason why the backlog is what it is.)
> 
> I don't quite understand non-derived files. I believe Savane-cleanup
> would be a good example to explain my confusion. This project is a
> fork of what used to be SourceForge 2.0 [1]. The below file [2] has
> copyright from both the SourceForge Crew and the FSF in different
> years. The file claims that it is part of the Savane project in the
> license notice. To me this contrasts the exclusion of derived files
> from being covered.

By "derived", Karl meant "generated".
E.g. an Info file is generated/derived from a Texinfo file.
But even in this case, sometimes we require the notices, or at least
precise what source file the file is generated from.

-- 
Sylvain