Re: [Savannah-hackers-public] Documentating hosting requirements

[Sebastian Gerhardt]

Hi Nicodemo,

I think you did a great job here. My suggestions are:

> Free software is not a proper
> noun and should not be capitalized.

I always thought of Free Software as a label, kind of a trademark.
Therefore I personally will continue to capitalize it but I won't argue
with native speakers about how the official Savannah spelling should
be ;)


> ===== NEWLY REVISED VERSION BELOW =======
> 
> Please read these usage terms carefully. If you do not follow
> these terms, we will not accept your project. If we do not have enough
> information to determine whether your project follows these terms, we
> will have to ask you to register the project again with more details.

Do we actually do this? Usually we ask on the tracker to fix issues we
point out (as written further below), and only demand registering again
if the submission is really FUBAR.


> B. No dependencies on non-free software. 
> 5. It must deliver the full functionality and convienence on a fully
> free platform and free operating system environment. REVISED
"convenience"


> C. No non-free formats REVISED
> 1. Your project must not create formats that can only be used
> with non-free software. REVISED

This is a very strict requirement. I think this goes a bit too far.
If a free software can write such a file, doesn't that usually mean 
this file can be used with free software as well?


> D. Speaking about free software
> 1. Clearly describe your project as free software. REVISED

This will be a momentous requirement as well. The way I understand it, 
we then will require the explicit label "free software" on any project
description page, rather than just, say, in the license header.

> E. Free software, documentation, and supporting file licenses REVISED
> 1. All files must have a free license. Choose a standard, free license.
> NEW (4) 

This paragraph is fine. But as this is one of the points that get
missed, it should be moved up. To be A or B if you ask me ;)


> I. Why the legal checks before approval? NEW (2)

*nitpicking*
This is no requirement but additional information, therefore it should
not be enumerated the same way as the above.


My 2 cents.