[Top][All Lists]

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

[task #16351] Submission of Emilua

From: Vinícius dos Santos Oliveira
Subject: [task #16351] Submission of Emilua
Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2023 10:31:47 -0400 (EDT)

Follow-up Comment #4, task #16351 (project administration):

Thank you for the follow-up.

> Savannah hosting requirements say that the documentation should be released
under FDL-compatible terms.  The GPL isn't compatible with the FDL.

But is CC-BY incompatible with FDL? If it is, I can change the license for the
documentation. As far as I know, it should be compatible with FDL as well.

I wouldn't choose a documentation license to be intentionally incompatible
with FDL, and CC-BY seemed permissive enough that shouldn't cause any

> I'm sorry.  Your submission suggested that you didn't really care of the
licensing terms of your dependencies (e.g. OpenSSL is licensed under anything
but "BSD", whatever it could mean),

I'm sorry. I used the ArchLinux package database to check the license for some
of the dependencies. For OpenSSL 1.1 (which is the version I use), they list
it as "BSD":

I'm sorry for the trouble.

> and of our requirements generally ("runs on FreeBSD, Linux, or other

Linux is my main system, so it is were things get tested. The code is portable
and should run on other systems as well (which I test from time to time, but
breaks once I develop new features and stay that way until I test and fix
incompatibilities again).


Reply to this item at:


Message sent via Savannah

reply via email to

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