[Top][All Lists]

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

[task #15602] Submission of dungeon-mode

From: Corwin Brust
Subject: [task #15602] Submission of dungeon-mode
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2020 20:04:00 -0400 (EDT)
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:80.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/80.0

Follow-up Comment #20, task #15602 (project administration):

[comment #19 comment #19:]
> Thanks for your help, Corwin and Ineiev.

Thanks for additional feedback and thoughts, below and all along this jourey

> A few remaining points needing to be addressed:
> - Ineiev pointed out to me that
>   build/user-settings/host-data/dungeon-name/no-spoilers/
>   is missing a license header, which I probably had not noticed.  I also
>   noticed that (one level up) also lacks a license notice.
>   Would you please add the GPLv3+ header to those files as well?

Removed these, see below.

> - After addressing the above, I think the only files without an explicit
>   license notice in them would be the ones in
>   build/user-settings/game-data/Characters/Bob.  I understand that the
>   blanket statement added in f613a39cd25037aaad5ffb35d18bfbacd6f4dc8c
>   was meant to address that.  But I have since learned that the files
>   are better listed specifically in the README, as otherwise it would be
>   too easy to add a file with a different license and/or copyright to
>   the repository and get the licensing and copyright details wrong or
>   just forget about.  Part of the reasoning for requiring notices in
>   files whenever possible is to make it easier and clearer when copying
>   these files to other packages, per "Why license notices?" of
>   <>.
>   Other related references on this topic:
>   <>
>   <>

This seems clear and will be our approach going forward.  For the files in
question I have removed each from master as they were from very early in the
project and didn't relate to anything currently needed.
>   As such, would you please explicitly mention those three txt files in
>   the README?  It would probably help to do that in a small README in
>   the same directory as those files to help tie things together nicely
>   and avoid listing individual such files (if their number grows in the
>   future) in the main README of the project.

As aluded to above, we haven't yet updated the README as suggested.  That's
only because we've been able to avoid keeping any files that can't (and don't
already) have the proper license and copyrights.   We are aligned to update
the README to explicitly call out "stragglers" (files we can't or don't want
to add the license and copyright information to, for whatever reason) and
we'll udpate to call out exception files as soon as we have one :)

I gave a once over the entire repo and coudn't spot any files that don't have
a license and copyright. *fingers crossed*

> I believe once these are taken care of we should be good to go. :-)
> Best,
> amin

Once again, thanks much for the work you (in the most general sense) do
supporting our community.


Reply to this item at:


  Message sent via Savannah

reply via email to

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