Re: [Savannah-hackers-public] "or any later" clause mandatory?

[Nicodemo Alvaro]

On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 10:21:57 +0100
Sylvain Beucler <address@hidden> wrote:
> I'm afraid that people will sometimes try to submit the project
> without doing the licensing clean-up, thinking "Are they _really_
> gonna ask me to clean this up?  Trying without doesn't hurt".  I know
> I would :) In this case we type sv-problem-gpl-info and that's it.

That is if you have someone using a GPL license. If they don't you have
to modify it to fit the description of their license. It would be
nice to clean up this script as well.

> And, I don't think that shortening the check-list to 2 boxes will help
> in that regard.  Maybe we could add "Yes, you need to fix it before we
> approve your project."

Fine, but this could be one of those things that we could ask the
savannah-users for their experience.

> > > What exactly is missing from 
> > > http://savannah.gnu.org/register/requirements.php ?
> > > I'd start fixing this page, if need be.
> > 
> > What I am hoping for is something that the reviewer can more easily
> > refer to. In order to fix it in my strategy, that page needs to be
> > precise, restructured, and simplified. So the document I sent was
> > intended to help fix it.
> 
> The main issue I see with this numbered lists of items, is that
> there's no explanation.  "Don't use open source" -> why?

I'm for rewriting that to say "Do not use conflicting terms with free
software movement such as 'open source' on Savannah services, since this
site promotes free software."

Maybe, it should stop at "open source". 

I would like to point out that in paragraphs, people must understand a
main idea if they are going to comply. Main ideas are not always seen
even by many fluent English speakers. If you want someone to completely
understand the motives, then send them over to
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/

> > > Also, I don't think that stuff like "you need to test your
> > > applications with a Free Java Suite" should be in the official
> > > requirements. They are infered from "No dependencies on non-free
> > > software".  Where do you see this belong?
> > 
> > I read it from the HowToGetYourProjectAppprovedQuickly document. Karl
> > is worried about losing the information on the wiki, so it seemed like
> > one of the things to include.
> 
> The wiki has incremental backups and itself keeps revision history. I
> doubt we'll lose the information.

I am fine with removing the requirement, if it makes sense without it.
It misses the .NET issue anyways. It probably is better explained in
the review, if it turns up.

I think what he meant is that we should be referring to as few
documents as possible and so the applicant will miss it. In my view,
people may think the wiki is a vehicle meant for the editing
administrators. I think this may be enough to take the process less
seriously.

> > ["GPL" <=> "GPLv<current> or later"?]
> 
> According to the GNU GPL, yes, but that's an unnecessary
> uncertainty.  Let's ask users to stick to "GPLvX or later".

Great!

-- 
Nicodemo