[task #16584] Submission of StoneValley

[Ineiev]

Follow-up Comment #46, task #16584 (group administration):


> I noticed the LGPL doesn't have a guidance for applying LGPL to a new
program.

No, not in its text.

> But, in the LGPL there are:
> 2. Conveying Modified Versions.
> 3. Object Code Incorporating Material from Library Header Files.
>     b) Accompany the object code with a copy of the GNU GPL and this license
> document.
> 4. Combined Works.
> 5. Combined Libraries.
> 
> However they are under specific conditions, maybe I can not use them as
> guidance.

If you distribute your package under those conditions, you may want to
make sure that users are allowed at least redistribute it as is; if you
don't, they'll be technically required to do some work before they may
redistribute it, which isn't very nice.  What cases will apply to your
users if they decide to redistribute what you give them as is?

> I am sorry, at this point, I really don't know whether I as a copyright
holder
> who firstly whats to distribute StoneValley library under LGPL license,
should
> add a copy of both GPL and LGPL to my project or not, because I can't find a
> reference. Could you give me some hints?

Could you please check the GPL HowTo once again?
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-howto.html

> To be honest, I actually just mimic what the GLIBC redistributors does and
> revise my files. So, copyright notices only appear at every .c and .h file.

I see; we agreed that such approach was wrong by comment #35; however,
you didn't think that the tarball needed updating, did you?

> I altered my tarball again. Please evaluate it.
> I altered
> ./README file at line 10.

I think that line have a few drawbacks.

* The convention is to put the copyright notice as a separate line (or several
separate lines when it's too long).  README:10 contains more notes on the same
line.
* The note is written in an error-prone way: it will become wrong when any
file copyrighted by another person is added.
* Discriminating against other authors doesn't look like a right thing to do. 
If considered as a term of use, such things may render the package
proprietary.
* It's redundant to say that the notice applies to some other text files,
because they should include a valid notice themselves.

Now, let us come to the license notice.  First, please repeat what it should
look like in case of releasing a package under the LGPL 'version 3 or later'.

Please make sure that all your files contain the exact form of the notice
recommended by the GNU Project.  They are carefully written by lawyers to
avoid possible misinterpretations, and that's very important.  Neither of us
is a native English speaker, so we shouldn't describe the terms of use in our
own words.  When one specifies the licensing conditions carelessly, they often
turn out incompatible with Savannah hosting requirements.

Then, please note that Savannah hosting requirements include releasing
documentation in GFDL-compatible way.  Can you see what that means?



    _______________________________________________________

Reply to this item at:

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

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

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature