[task #16584] Submission of StoneValley

[Ineiev]

Follow-up Comment #34, task #16584 (group administration):


> To talk about the case of distributing unmodified source code, since the
LGPL
> is an additional text to the GPL license, we could check the GPL license, in
> the GPL license, there is:
> 
> 4. Conveying Verbatim Copies.
> 
> You may convey verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you receive
it,
> in any medium, provided that you conspicuously and appropriately publish on
> each copy an appropriate copyright notice; keep intact all notices stating
> that this License and any non-permissive terms added in accord with section
7
> apply to the code; keep intact all notices of the absence of any warranty;
> "and give all recipients a copy of this License along with the Program."
> 
> So the conclusion is conveying StoneValley library and add LGPL and GPL
> license to others. To explicitly show them the license.

Let us see where that passage mentions the LGPL.

* The LGPL is definitely not "copyright notice".
* The LGPL isn't a notice stating that "this License" (that is, the GPL)
applies to the code.
* The LGPL has nothing to do with "any non-permissive" terms because it's a
set of permissions.
* The LGPL isn't a notice of absense of any warranty, those notices come in
the text of the GPL.
* "This License" in the context of the GPL means the GPL.

Do I miss anything?

> > I feel you should provide more details.  What does "need to be
> > declared copyright" mean, other than that they should include
> > the legal notices?
> 
> The GPL and LGPL are base on the copyright laws, if you register some work
> under your country's copyright protection institute, each item of this work
> needs to be declared copyright, it means the work itself should include a
> legal notice. Because copyright laws are differ from countries and
districts.
> I can't give you a over-all description of copyright laws.

Savannah hosting requirements don't include knowing copyright law
of all possible jurisdictions.  It's sufficient to follow much shorder
recommendations written by FSF lawyers for the GNU Project.

> Neither I have an idea to fulfill them. I am not the GPL reviser, I can only
> follow the GPL and the documents you sent to me to find a reference.

Haven't I sent you this link in comment #1?

https://savannah.gnu.org/maintenance/ValidNotices/

Doesn't it explain what files should have copyright and license notices?



    _______________________________________________________

Reply to this item at:

  <https://savannah.gnu.org/task/?16584>

_______________________________________________
Message sent via Savannah
https://savannah.gnu.org/

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature