[Top][All Lists]

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

[Savannah-register-public] [task #12788] Submission of GoldBug Android S

From: Karl Berry
Subject: [Savannah-register-public] [task #12788] Submission of GoldBug Android Secure Instant Messenger
Date: Mon, 02 Sep 2013 22:37:12 +0000
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:23.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/23.0 SeaMonkey/2.20

Follow-up Comment #2, task #12788 (project administration):

Hi Tom,

Since Joan is away for a few days, I'll try to answer some of the
questions.  (Sorry if it gets garbled.)   

> GB is as well prepared for Windows Compile, the subpathes contain the
> libs with original source code and some supathes for the windows Libs,
> so dll.  We have the Source code fully provided. For the windows compile
> it porvides for the convenience pre-compiled libs.  If you compile on
> windows, the given Source has all source files that are needed.

As long as you are providing all the sources for the precompiled files,
I guess that is ok.

> The project uses the BSD License, The libs have other licenses Like
> libgcrypt has LGPL. That is possible, as the libgcrypt is not
> modified. there is no derived code from that, it is used as is.

Whether it's modified or not makes no difference, it seems to me.
Fortunately, all the licenses are compatible, I believe.

> We have the BSD licsense, see header files. I think it is not a
> modified license.

You are in fact using what is known as the "modified BSD" license, which
is good.  The "original BSD" license (circa 1980s-1993) had a
required-advertising clause which made it incompatible with the GNU GPL.  
(That's why we don't accept it.)
See for more
info, if you care.

> Yes. please send us the text, if the licensing is needing it, or is it
> only needed for your project approval?

I think your project is only using the LGPL and "modified BSD", right?
Then I believe no special exception for OpenSSL's unique license is
needed.  (The extra exception is needed when GPL code is involved, since
the GPL and OpenSSL license are incompatible.)

> i forwarded that to the developer.
> Makefiles are generated automatically.

It's crucial that the original sources (from which the Makefiles are
derived) have a license header.  It's highly desirable that the derived
files copy in the license header too (as, say, Automake does), but not
100% required.

> I think you are a little bit strong here, as e.g. the QT Ui files are XML
> files, which cannot have a header.

XML files can usually have comments.  But anyway, the crucial point is
to be clear on the licensing of every nontrivial file.  If it's
impractical or impossible for some files to have license information in
themselves (e.g., all your icons), the information can go in an
accompanying (same directory) README.

> What is the difference in BSD and Modified version and why do you
> exclude BSD?  

See above.

> And why are you so strong on readme-files having a license? they are
> not beloning to the source, they are side-effects for help

As you say, they are help files (a.k.a. documentation) and thus part of
the package and thus need some license statement, since the legal
default is nonfree ("all rights reserved").

It's true that we are pickier about this at Savannah than other forges.
It's because we want to be sure that everything distributed at Savannah
is free software/free documentation/free whatever, so that anyone using
or working on anything at Savannah need not worry about it.

jll> To help us better keep track of your registration, please use the
jll> tracker's web interface by following the link below. 
> ok

You answered in email :).  Please submit replies in the web tracker.

Hope this helps.  Thanks for your interest in Savannah.


Reply to this item at:


  Message sent via/by Savannah

reply via email to

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