[Savannah-register-public] Re: [task #7296] Submission of Procmail Module Library

[Alexander Shulgin]

On 9/28/07, Sylvain Beucler <address@hidden> wrote:
> Hi Alexander,
>
> Here's some criticism ;)
>
> On Tue, Sep 25, 2007 at 10:15:48PM +0300, Alexander Shulgin wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > This guy is kind of uneasy one... ;)
> >
> > Here is my proposed follow-up:
> > ---------------------------------------
> >
> > > I think placing one file in one directory and the other in another is
> > > confusing. The files e.g. under doc/source are not covered only by
> > > GFDL.
> >
> > It might be better to put both licenses at the top level if you fear
> > that kind of confusion.
> >
> > > The README points to direction to read:
> > >
> > >     doc/source      The source files from which *.html files are generated
> > >     doc/source/LICENSE.txt      Licensing information
> >
> > It is always good to have some clarifying references, please keep it. :-)
>
> The GFDL should be, in principle, a section of the documentation. I
> don't feel it is necessary to enforce this strictly, but the copy of
> license still should be in the same repository, whatever the name of
> the file is.

So, having the following placement for licenses should be OK(?):

./COPYING  (GPL)
./doc/source/COPYING.DOC  (GFDL)

I do not feel naming the most important concern here either, but just
want to make sure OP understands he needs to provide verbatim copies
of _both_ licenses.  To this point we only had GNU GPL in the top
directory or under doc/source.

May be we can accept the project now, requiring the OP to arrange
licenses properly before uploading the sources...

> > Do you feel you have to change every single notice in your files to
> > read COPYING.GNU-GPL instead?  Anyway I would not recommend that, but
> > just stick to common practice. :-)
>
> As long as there is a copy of the license, I think that's fine. No
> need to enforce a naming convention.

OK, may be I tried to be too strict there. :-)

> There's no problem to provide support for proprietary software/formats
> as long as it doesn't hamr users of free software. Basically, as long
> as the free software solution is as good as, or better than the
> proprietary solution, that's something we accept. The most obvious
> example is port for Windows - they are acceptable as long as they are
> not better than the GNU/Linux version.

I do not see full analogy with Windows ports here, however, lets OP
keep the ppt file if likes to.


-- 
Cheers,
Alex