[Top][All Lists]

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

[Savannah-register-public] [task #15279] Submission of Gash: Guile as Sh

From: Timothy Sample
Subject: [Savannah-register-public] [task #15279] Submission of Gash: Guile as Shell
Date: Fri, 24 May 2019 14:39:35 -0400 (EDT)
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/60.0

Follow-up Comment #6, task #15279 (project administration):

It seems like we have three problems remaining, the change log, using CC0, and
the tests.  I will take each one in turn below.

I've created a new tarball that I hope addresses the first and last issue.  I
will wait for your thoughts on CC0 before addressing it.

New tarball:


As a side note, I realize that I ask a lot of questions in the text that
follows.  I want to be conscious of the time and energy you are putting into
this, so feel free to say "I don't know off the top of my head" to any or all
of it.  :)


I think I will solve this by starting the change log from version 0.1 when it
gets released, and by distributing an empty log for version 0.1.  Some earlier
commit log messages are not in the proper format, so this solves two

However, in the future, I would like to use the "gitlog-to-changelog" script
from Gnulib, but I'm not sure how to do it in a legally responsible way.  Do
you know if it is safe to assume anything about the license of Git commit
messages?  Obviously I can license my commit log messages however I like, but
what about messages from other contributors?  Does GNU have a framework for
this that I can follow?

Also, while looking for examples of how to use the script, I noticed that even
GNU Hello doesn't include copyright or license notices in its ChangeLog file. 


I would really like to use CC0 for the README and NEWS files, since I know
that it is common practice to copy descriptions and information from these
files for blog posts and for software directories.  The next section
of the manual you linked says that this is acceptable.  I followed the link
there on how to use CC0, and came up with the result you saw.

I could remove the COPYING.CC0 file, but Creative Commons recommends
that I include it (and I take that page to imply that they came up with this
recommendation in collaboration with the FSF).  I'm a little shocked that the
CC0 license text doesn't say anything about copying itself.  There must be
something funny going on if the "Information for Maintainers of GNU Software"
manual suggest using CC0, but it is impossible to do so.  Do you know anything
more about this?  Should I contact Creative Commons or the FSF?

I know I can just use the GNU all-permissive license to dodge this issue, but
I really care about being clear and precise about licenses.  Indeed, that's
why I'm here in the first place!  :)  Saying "legally you have to attribute
the authors, but we know that you won't and we don't care" would be a little

That being said, in the interest of expediency, I could use the all-permissive
license for now while I try and sort out the CC0 stuff.


You make some really good points here!  Thanks.  I think I will explicitly
list all the files and use the normal license notice.  That's way better.  In
the future, I have plans to switch to putting multiple tests in a single file,
following the format used in the Oil project.  If/when that happens, this will
no longer be an issue.

Thanks again for your feedback!


Reply to this item at:


  Message sent via Savannah

reply via email to

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