[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Savannah-register-public] [task #10599] Submission of ZaK, property man

From: Alex Fernandez
Subject: [Savannah-register-public] [task #10599] Submission of ZaK, property management system
Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2010 21:42:05 +0000
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv: Gecko/20100911 Iceweasel/3.5.12 (like Firefox/3.5.12)

Update of task #10599 (project administration):

                  Status:                    None => In Progress            
             Assigned to:                    None => alexfernandez          


Follow-up Comment #1:

Hi Yellow,

I am reviewing your submission on behalf of Savannah, please excuse the
delay. Now there are a few issues with it:
* A lot of the provided files (, README) do not have the required
license header. This GPL howto <>
explains how to put the project under the GPL.
* Likewise, a lot of distributed images do not have copyright information. It
is best to list all images, their author and the license they are under in a
README file or similar.
* Some other projects are included in your distributed version, but there is
no license information attached. It is better to include information about
these packages and the license they are distributed under in the README.
* Savannah is sponsored by the GNU project, which does not speak about "open
source" but about "Free software". You can read why at the Hosting
requirements <>.
* Finally, the most important point: it is against the GNU philosophy to
offer a dumbed-down version of your software under the GPL, and then sell a
proprietary version under a more restrictive license. This puts Free software
at a disadvantage and makes users think that proprietary software is somehow
better. This is however what ZaK does according to this page
<>. I would have to consult the legal mailing
list before approving the project as is. It is however perfectly valid to sell
a service (such as your hosting services) and allow users to download the same
version. This is essentially what some heavyweights as Red Hat or Alfresco do,
and they have based huge businesses on this practice. You can even use the
Affero GPL <> to encourage
distribution of improvements. Have you considered releasing the full version
under the GPL?

Please submit a new tarball (you can attach it to this task) once these
issues are solved. Thanks!


Reply to this item at:


  Message sent via/by Savannah

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]