[task #16584] Submission of StoneValley

[Ineiev]

Follow-up Comment #42, task #16584 (group administration):

On Sun, Oct 13, 2024 at 08:34:06AM -0400, John Cage wrote:
> Follow-up Comment #41, task #16584 (group administration):
> 
> 
> > I'm afraid this still sounds confusing to me.  We have discussed that
> > the copyright holders were not bound by the licenses they apply to
> > their programs.  Don't you remember that?
> 
> Yes, I remember. The license can not restrict what the copyright holders
> choose to do.

Very well.

> However, as a man who wants to convey library to others under
> LGPL license, I may use the license as a guide to add or remove a copy of
the
> license itself.

I don't think I understand what 'use the license as a guide' means.

> Though it is not compulsory to bind license with the project,
> I choose to add both GPL and LGPL with StoneValley project.

What could be the implications for the redistributors in these two cases,

* when the tarball comes with a copy of the LGPL, and
* when the tarball comes without a copy of the LGPL?

> > Then I wonder how you listed the files to check in your tarball,
> > and how you checked them.
> 
> I follow this guide:
...
> > You sent me the link mentioned these following 2 types of  copyrightable
> > files:
...

Good; but I'd like to know how you get the list of the candidate files
to check in the first place.

> 1st, I add copyright notice to the README files shows this whole project is
> published under the LGPL license.

I think it's time to repeat what copyright notices are.  What parts
do they consist of?



    _______________________________________________________

Reply to this item at:

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

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

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature