[Top][All Lists]

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

[Savannah-register-public] Re: [task #7296] Submission of Procmail Modul

From: Sylvain Beucler
Subject: [Savannah-register-public] Re: [task #7296] Submission of Procmail Module Library
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 20:54:23 +0200
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11)

Hi Alexander,

Here's some criticism ;)

On Tue, Sep 25, 2007 at 10:15:48PM +0300, Alexander Shulgin wrote:
> Hi,
> This guy is kind of uneasy one... ;)
> Here is my proposed follow-up:
> ---------------------------------------
> > I think placing one file in one directory and the other in another is
> > confusing. The files e.g. under doc/source are not covered only by
> > GFDL.
> It might be better to put both licenses at the top level if you fear
> that kind of confusion.
> > The README points to direction to read:
> >
> >     doc/source      The source files from which *.html files are generated
> >     doc/source/LICENSE.txt      Licensing information
> It is always good to have some clarifying references, please keep it. :-)

The GFDL should be, in principle, a section of the documentation. I
don't feel it is necessary to enforce this strictly, but the copy of
license still should be in the same repository, whatever the name of
the file is.

> > In same location as LICENSE.txt,
> >
> >     [Edit; I added clarifying texts
> >      "see the file COPYING.GNU-GPL" and
> >      "see the file COPYING.GNU-GFDL"]
> >
> >
> >
> > there are accompanying files, which contain the full licence texts:
> >
> >    *.GNU-GPL
> >    *.GNU-FDL
> Sorry, I cannot find the COPYING.GNU-FDL file in the tarball you have
> provided.  Please double-check it.
> > There are descriptive names to the person downloading the source. The
> > names like these are not so clear:
> >
> >    COPYING
> >
> > This may a convention used by the GNU project, but unknown to majority
> > of the applications.
> I don't know what majority you are referring to, however, for me
> unpacking a source tarball and not seeing a COPYING file (whether it's
> GPL or not) is highly confusing.
> Moreover, you use standard copyright notices which contain the
> following (emphasis is mine):
> You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
> along with program; see the file _COPYING_. ...
> Do you feel you have to change every single notice in your files to
> read COPYING.GNU-GPL instead?  Anyway I would not recommend that, but
> just stick to common practice. :-)

As long as there is a copy of the license, I think that's fine. No
need to enforce a naming convention.

> > I also suspects that in Procmail library's case, the *.DOC should
> > include both GPL and GFDL in this dual licence situation, -- with
> > explanatory textx -- leading to further confusion.
> This is highly unlikely to be the case.  Both GPL and GFDL have the
> "verbatim reproduction" sentence in their very first lines of the
> following form:
> Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this
> license document, but changing it is not allowed.
> This way, including full texts of both licenses into single file ("a
> document") is, in fact, invalid.
> > > 3. While using Open Office format is pretty OK, would you mind
> > > removing the original(?) .ppt file from the tarball?
> >
> > I'd keep both.
> Please think about this for a moment: what will happen if someone
> starts distributing a modified version of your program/documentation?
> Should he/she modify both .odp and .ppt files if the presentation has
> to be modified?  What if he/she chooses to modify only the .ppt file?
> More important, having a .ppt file in the distribution bears the
> message we would not like to support: a message that using proprietary
> software and obscure formats is OK.

There's no problem to provide support for proprietary software/formats
as long as it doesn't hamr users of free software. Basically, as long
as the free software solution is as good as, or better than the
proprietary solution, that's something we accept. The most obvious
example is port for Windows - they are acceptable as long as they are
not better than the GNU/Linux version.


reply via email to

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