[Savannah-register-public] [task #14528] Submission of relax

[Ineiev]

Update of task #14528 (project administration):

         Should Start On: Sun 28 May 2017 02:00:00 PM UTC =>                  
     
   Should be Finished on: Wed 07 Jun 2017 02:00:00 PM UTC =>                  
     

    _______________________________________________________

Follow-up Comment #31:

> The PDF manual and auto-converted HTML manual are GPLv3+ licensed. These
> contain lots of source code fragments, full scripts, UI screenshots,
> documentation auto-generated from the code (215 pages from 712), and a huge
> number of non-copyrightable mathematical equations.

While mathematical equations may not be copyrigtable, their expressions are.

> Using the GPLv3+ was
> determined to be far less complicated than having a FDLed document
> interspersed with a huge number of GPLed text, graphic, and data
components.
> So we chose licensing simplicity for legal clarity.

Does it invalidate Savannah policies? The GNU guidelines say when some code
may be useful both in program and in documentation, it should be released
in parallel under the GPL and the FDL.

>> (e.g. what license actually applies to graphics/oxygen_icons? GPL? LGPL?
may
>> you really relicense it under GPLv3 "or later"?;
>
> The authors listed in the AUTHORS file originally licensed the graphics
under
> the LGPLv3+. They use the text "or (at your option) any later version" in
> their COPYING file. The original AUTHORS and COPYING file have been placed
> into the graphics/oxygen_icons/ directory.
>
> We originally just had the LGPLv3 licence text in the
> graphics/oxygen_icons/COPYING file, rather than their "annotated" version.
> The new README files contained a cut and paste error that is now fixed (the
> copied GPL notice should have been modified to be LGPL).

I don't think this addresses my concerns: the license for those files isn't
expressed consistently, and it isn't clear what tools you used for
relicensing.

>> and public domain files should also have notices saying who was the
original copyright holder;
>
> This is the case for all the public domain content except for PDB (Protein
> Data Bank) 3D protein structures.
...
> The "AUTHOR" entry is sometimes the "original copyright
> holder", sometimes the professor who does not have copyright ownership
rather
> than their student who created the file, and sometimes all of the authors
on
> the publication.

If it was a student who created the file, the chances are that the copyright
holder is their university...

> Upon submission of a 3D structure to the PDB, the "original
> copyright holder" accepts to release the work as public domain. Therefore
> there is no legal question about the copyright-free status of the contents
in
> the Protein Data Bank.

...but anyway, when the user looks at these PDB files, their copyright
status should be clear, without asking the developers of the package.
When I look at these files, their status isn't clear for me even after
your explanation (I'm sorry, I couldn't find the statement about the data
being in public domain on Protein Data Bank websites, I admit I didn't
look for it very well).

>> and why opening SVG files in an editor like Inkscape shows that they have a
proprietary license,
>
> This new Inkscape "feature" of listing the licence, which I've only just
> found out about, did not exist when these graphics were created. It seems
to
> default to "proprietary" in the Inkspace application for any SVG without
> <cc:license/> tags. But that does not make our vector graphics
"proprietary".

No, but it raises an issue.

The task is to prominently and unambiguously notify the user
about the status of each file.

Inkscape is one of the natural ways to edit SVG files, and it doesn't show
your embedded comments; moreover, it may even not preserve them after minor
unrelated edits. This is not quite good.

> Should we be adding "Creative Commons" tags to our SVG files just for the
> benefit of the current version of the Inkscape application?

CC? Your comments say "GPLv3+".

> This is not even
> used by the Creative Commons organisation themselves (see
> https://mirrors.creativecommons.org/presskit/logos/cc.logo.svg).

Creative Commons has no aim to follow Savannah hosting requirements.

>> and why normally reading DVI and PDF files people don't see the notices)
and
>> one has to figure out why files like graphics/oxygen_icons/AUTHORS are
>> missed.
>
> I'm not sure what this means? Should the GPLv3+ licensing of the PDF and
HTML
> manual be better advertised? If so, I have just added a second title page
> with this info. It adds the following text to the bottom of page 2:

"""
Copyright (C) 2001-2018 the relax development team

Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under
the
terms of the GNU General Public License (GPL), Version 3 or any later version
published by the Free Software Foundation.
"""

I can't see the second page in PDFs; would the copyright line be valid
for them all?

> For graphics/oxygen_icons/AUTHORS, this simply a list of authors. Does it
> require a copyright notice? I thought this type of content is not
> copyrightable.

Anything more than 15 lines long is presumably copyrightable; if not,
it makes sense to add an explanation why it isn't.

    _______________________________________________________

Reply to this item at:

  <http://savannah.gnu.org/task/?14528>

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