[task #16584] Submission of StoneValley

[John Cage]

Follow-up Comment #35, task #16584 (group administration):


> 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?

There is a block of text at the tail of GPL license to show users how to apply
LGPL:

The GNU General Public License does not permit incorporating your program into
proprietary programs. If your program is a subroutine library, you may
consider it more useful to permit linking proprietary applications with the
library. If this is what you want to do, use the GNU Lesser General Public
License instead of this License. But first, please read
<https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html>.


> 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.

Thank you! I got your idea. To sort on every copyright laws 
is meaningless for the topic here we are discussing now.

> > 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?

Yes, you have sent me the link. I was answering your following questions:

(comment #32)
> Second, it's necessary to make sure that the inspected data set
> contains all possible classes of files.  If some classes are missing,
> one can't tell anything about them.

> Third, it's important to only use the data set that includes
> no mistakes.  When the data set is erroneous, one is likely
> to get wrong conclusions.

> The second and third point aren't easy.  I don't think I really
> have an idea how to fulfil them.  Have you?

I meant that I was as the same with you that I couldn't fulfill every
conditions especially the conditions you've mentioned that with mistakes.

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

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

You sent me the link mentioned these following 2 types of  copyrightable
files:

a) For copyright purpose, any file more than ten lines long is nontrivial, so
it should have copyright and license notices.

b) If some of your files cannot carry such notices (e.g. binary files), then
you can add a README file in the same directory containing the copyright and
license notices. Check
http://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain/html_node/Copyright-Notices.html for further
information.


    _______________________________________________________

Reply to this item at:

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

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

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature