[Savannah-dev] savannah.el discussion

[Mathieu Roy]

Hi Rudy,

There are some adaptation that seems questionnable to me. Note that
the savannah.el has already been polished and review by rms.


1) In the following text, the "could be temporary" disappeared while it's
important.
Also, "legal issue" has been replaced by "legal problem". I think that
issue is more appropriate, more general. Some issues are not
technically "legal problems" but still need require discussion.

What concerns me is too see "copyright notices and copying permission
statements" converted to "copyright notice and statement permitting
copying". A "copying permission statements" is something pretty distinct,
like "copyright notice" and should not be turned into a phrase. 


 (defun sv-problem-tarball ()
   (interactive)
-  "There's no tarball in the registration page"
-  (insert "Please register your project again including a URL
-\(could be temporary\) where we can find the source code.
-The description you give during project registration will be
-read by Savannah administrators and not by the general public;
-if you are concerned with privacy, you can
-send me a copy of the code by e-mail,
-
-We would like to look at your source code, even if it is still
-not functional, to help you fix potential legal issues which
-would be harder to correct after the project gets approved.
-For example, to release your program properly under the GPL,
-you should write copyright notices and copying permission statements
-at the beginning of every source code file,
-as explained in http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-howto.html.\n\n";)
+  "There's no tarball in the registration text"
+  (insert "Please register your project again and include an URL
+pointing to the source code.  The description you gave when
+registering will not be read by the general public. If you are still
+concerned with privacy, however, you can forward the code to me by
+email.
+
+We wish to review your source code, even if it is not functional, to
+catch potential legal problems early.
+
+For example, to release your program properly under the GPL you must
+include a copyright notice and statement permitting copying at the
+beginning of every file of source code.  This is explained in
+http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-howto.html.  Our review would help
+catch potential omissions such as these.\n\n")


2) The following seems akward: copy a copy? Hum "include a copy" seems
better.


+In addition, if you haven't already, please copy a copy of the plain
+text version of the GPL, available from
+\(http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.txt\), into a file named
\"COPYING\".



3) Also, I think the missing-gpl-info should be adapted to works even
with LGPL (adding (L) before GPL should be ok) instead adding a
different defun for each license.


4) I prefer the previous sentence that does not lead to think that we
have to determine together whether a software run with free JVM or
not. It the developer job.

Worst, the problem is not at all "unusual dependancies" but really
"ugly dependancies". 
Usual dependancies for a java software are usually proprietary java
suite. But proprietary java suite is exactly the ugly dependancy we
want to avoid.


 (defun sv-problem-java ()
   (interactive)
-  "For software that uses Java, we want to check for ugly dependencies"
-  (insert "
-The key question here is to figure out if your project
-can run on a Free Software Java suite
-\(see http://www.gnu.org/software/java/ for more
-information\).  Could you give us some explanation about
-this point?\n\n")
+  "We need to check Java code for unusual dependencies"
+  (insert "We must determine whether your project can run on a Free
+Software Java suite \(see http://www.gnu.org/software/java/ for more
+information\).
+
+Please provide us more information about this point.\n\n")
   (message "Inserted \(savannah.el\)")



5) We do not "wish" to keep the to  maintain the distinction but we
want to (want as a need, not a desire)


 (insert "Since your project does not seems to be part of the
-GNU project yet, we cannot accept that project name
-for it.  There are some non-GNU programs
-with names such as gnuplot and gnuboy, but they are
-not hosted in Savannah.\n
-In the projects we host we want to keep the distinction
- between GNU and non-GNU projects, to avoid confusion.\n
-If your project is accepted into the GNU project, you
- can change its name later on.\n\n")
+(insert "Your project is not yet part of the GNU project, so we cannot
+accept its current name.
+
+While there are non-GNU programs with names that include 'gnu', such
+as gnuplot and gnuboy, they are not hosted on Savannah.\n We wish to
+maintain the distinction between GNU and non-GNU projects.
+
+When your project is accepted into the GNU project you may change its
+name.  You can do this by asking us.\n\n")
   (message "Inserted \(savannah.el\)")



6) We should try to use the same verbal forms like at www.gnu.org

According to http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html "qualify"
fits more than "designate" in the expression "The license you chose
qualifies your software as Free"...


@@ -196,61 +215,59 @@
   (interactive)
   "The license is incompatible with the GPL"
   (insert "
-The license you chose qualifies your software as Free
-Software but it is incompatible with the GNU GPL.\n\n
-We've chosen to host only software published under licenses
-compatible with the GPL.  This is so that people can
-combine files from the different projects hosted,
-without licensing troubles.\n
-If you're willing to switch to a GPL-compatible license, please
-resubmit.\n
-You can get a list of various licenses and comments about them
-at http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html.
-That should help you to understand our position.\n
-If there's a particular reason to use only the license you chose
-initially, you're welcome to tell us about it.\n")
+The license you chose designates your software as free software but
+it is incompatible with the GNU GPL.
+
+We host only software published under licenses compatible with the
+GPL, which allows developers to combine files from any project without
+fear of a licensing problem.
+
+If you are willing to switch to a GPL-compatible license, please
+resubmit the project.\n You can get a list of various licenses and
+comments about them at
+http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html.
+
+If you still wish to use your current license, we will be happy to
+discuss it with you.\n")




The rest seems fine to me,

Regards,





Rudy Gevaert <address@hidden> a tapoté :

> CVSROOT:      /cvsroot/savannah
> Module name:  savannah
> Branch:       
> Changes by:   Rudy Gevaert <address@hidden>   03/07/19 09:54:38
> 
> Modified files:
>       backend/gnu-specific: savannah.el 
> 
> Log message:
>       An update for the savannah.el file.  Many spelling and grammar mistakes 
> removed.
> 
> CVSWeb URLs:
> http://savannah.gnu.org/cgi-bin/viewcvs/savannah/savannah/backend/gnu-specific/savannah.el.diff?tr1=1.3&tr2=1.4&r1=text&r2=text
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Savannah-cvs mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/savannah-cvs

-- 
Mathieu Roy
 
  Homepage:
    http://yeupou.coleumes.org
  Not a native english speaker: 
    http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english