[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: Alexander Shulgin
Subject: [Savannah-register-public] Re: [task #7296] Submission of Procmail Module Library
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 22:15:48 +0300


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

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. :-)

> 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:
> 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. :-)

> 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.


reply via email to

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