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

[Sylvain Beucler]

On Fri, Sep 28, 2007 at 10:10:45PM +0300, Alexander Shulgin wrote:
> 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 think so, yes.

> 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...

Good idea.

> > > 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.

Well, both Windows executables and PowerPoint presentations require
proprietary software (MS Windows, and MS Office). In both case, there
can be a free software equivalent (GNU/Linux port, .ods
presentation). As long as the free software solution is as good as or
better, no problem at Savannah.

For GNU projects, it's stricter, because the policy is to avoid even
mentioning proprietary software unless it's already widespread and
well-known :)

-- 
Sylvain