[Top][All Lists]

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

[Savannah-register-public] [task #8772] Submission of Alf's PDF Viewer L

From: Yavor Doganov
Subject: [Savannah-register-public] [task #8772] Submission of Alf's PDF Viewer Like Vim
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 17:40:18 +0000
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv: Gecko/20080311 (Debian- Kazehakase/0.5.6 gNewSense/0.5.6-gns1

Update of task #8772 (project administration):

                  Status:                    None => Wait reply             
             Assigned to:                    None => yavor                  


Follow-up Comment #1:

I apologize for reverting so late; I hope you are still interested in hosting
your project at Savannah.

I reviewed the tarball, and there are some fundamental problems with it,
herewith ordered in priority:

1.a) In the project submission you indicate "GPLv2+", but the source files'
notices show a different license, apparently the X11 License.  Is that a
mistake?  Note that you cannot distribute your package *at all* under this
license, because you link against the poppler library, which is GPLv2.  Doing
so would violate the license of poppler.  The only way to do it is under
"GPLv2 or later" or "GPLv2 only" (the latter not acceptable for Savannah) --
but note that by using poppler you won't be able to upgrade to GPLv3, at least
as it stands now.  There's not much choice, though, at least until GNU PDF is

b) The copyright statements say "1998-2005, 2006 Free Software Foundation,
Inc."  Another mistake, perhaps?  The poppler library is younger, so it seems
odd that apvlv is that old.  In general you should state the years in full,
separated by commas.  Assigning copyright to the FSF or someone else requires
a copyright assignment (legal papers that are physically signed and kept on
file), otherwise it is not effective according to the current international
conventions.  I'm not sure the FSF accepts assignments for non-GNU packages;
in general they should, but they might avoid that to reduce the workload on
their copyright clerk.

2. We can accept the project as non-GNU only; it can be later moved easily in
the "GNU area" if approved as a GNU package.  See for details.

3. The tarball is missing a COPYING file.

4. To license your package unambiguously you should add license notices to
all non-derived files -- that includes makefiles and others like
 Usually, this alone is not a reason to reject a project at Savannah, but it
is our duty to point out good practices.


Reply to this item at:


  Message sent via/by Savannah

reply via email to

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