[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [Savannah-register-public] [task #11224] Submission of Olivier Caill

From: Olivier Cailloux
Subject: Re: [Savannah-register-public] [task #11224] Submission of Olivier Cailloux
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 22:53:13 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv: Gecko/20110424 Thunderbird/3.1.10

Le 19/07/2011 21:31, Mario Castelán Castro a écrit :
Follow-up Comment #3, task #11224 (project administration):

Hash: SHA256

2011-07-19 in GNU Savannah task #11224: "Submission of Olivier

Hello and thank you for this review.
Sorry for the compression format. IMHO this was suitable for free
projects as this is a (AFAIK) freely available format
( I use the p7zip implementation
available in Ubuntu (Universe). Anyway, here is a tar gz one.
It's not an issue whether something is "Freely available" but whether
user freedoms are observed.  That's the case with 7z because of the
p7zip existence.  I just pointed than it's not a common format and I
have no installed tool to dearchive it.
What I meant was: free as in free speech (granted, my phrasing was incorrect). I understand your point.
Regarding the tarball:

In order to release your project properly and unambiguously under the
LGPL, please place copyright notices and permission-to-copy statements
at the beginning of every copyrightable file, usually any file more
than 10 lines long.

Currently several files lack licensing information and Copyright
I think every .java file has the licensing information (the process is automated thanks to a classical maven tool). Please correct me if I am wrong.

Regarding the pom.xml files, which I guess you are referring to, these are maven pom files, and it is common practice, AFAIK, to include the license as metadata in <licenses> tags, as is done in jlp/pom.xml. These files are typically treated by automated tools (e.g. pom editor in eclipse or maven tools) and I'd prefer not to mess with them manually. IMHO the licenses tag does what it's there to do: say what license applies. Google has the same practice, look e.g. at the pom.xml file here: , the pom.xml file does not contain any notice apart from the <licenses> tag. Contrast with any .java file, e.g. : those do start with the appropriate header.
In addition, please include a copy of the plain text version of the
GNU LGPL and the GNU GPL, available from and  Please note that, since the
LGPL is a set of additional permissions on top of the GPL, it's
important to include both licenses so users have all the materials
they need to understand their rights.
These are in the build folder. Once again, this is typical for the maven setup: then the maven deployment scripts can automatically copy these files into the release .jar files for distribution.
If some of your files cannot carry such notices (e.g. binary files,
auto generated files), then you can add a README file in the same
directory containing the copyright and license notices.  Check for
further information.
An exception holds for two .java files that I copied from an other project and which lie into the folder 'javailp-solver-minisat-jni/src/main/java/net/sf/javailp/minisat': I left them unchanged (from : “For files which are regularly copied from another project (such as ‘gnulib’), leave the copyright notice as it is in the original.”)
For more information, see

I also noticed the project name given on the "Name" and "System name"
fields don't match that of the tarball and it's contained files.
Could you please provide a clarification on what's the real name?.
This is project name, not developer name.

We don't require anyone to (Not to) use a particular system for
development (Only to make sure the software runs on a free one), but
you might be interested in the note about Ubuntu in
Yep, I know, and use Debian at work (I am the only one using a non-Windows system in my lab). But all in all, I feel that Ubuntu does play a positive role in promoting the free software values to the public (even if only partially)...

Once again I thank you for your reviewing. I understand the value of making sure the legal things are ok, and I hope we will be able to reach an agreement on the details to make my project free as can be, and published on savannah. Please tell me if I still missed something.

Regards and thanks for you interest in free software.

Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)



Reply to this item at:


   Mensaje enviado vía/por Savannah

reply via email to

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