[Savannah-hackers] Re: [Fwd: savannah.el discussion]

[Rudy Gevaert]

> Hi Rudy,

> There are some adaptation that seems questionnable to me. Note that
> the savannah.el has already been polished and review by rms.

> 1) In the following text, the "could be temporary" disappeared while it's
> important.
> Also, "legal issue" has been replaced by "legal problem". I think that
> issue is more appropriate, more general. Some issues are not
> technically "legal problems" but still need require discussion.

You are right.

> What concerns me is too see "copyright notices and copying permission
> statements" converted to "copyright notice and statement permitting
> copying". A "copying permission statements" is something pretty distinct,
> like "copyright notice" and should not be turned into a phrase.

I do not see any difference between the two, except that the one I
proposed seems natural and easier to read.

> 
>  (defun sv-problem-tarball ()
>    (interactive)
> -  "There's no tarball in the registration page"
> -  (insert "Please register your project again including a URL
> -\(could be temporary\) where we can find the source code.
> -The description you give during project registration will be
> -read by Savannah administrators and not by the general public;
> -if you are concerned with privacy, you can
> -send me a copy of the code by e-mail,
> -
> -We would like to look at your source code, even if it is still
> -not functional, to help you fix potential legal issues which
> -would be harder to correct after the project gets approved.
> -For example, to release your program properly under the GPL,
> -you should write copyright notices and copying permission statements
> -at the beginning of every source code file,
> -as explained in http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-howto.html.\n\n";)
> +  "There's no tarball in the registration text"
> +  (insert "Please register your project again and include an URL
> +pointing to the source code.  The description you gave when
> +registering will not be read by the general public. If you are still
> +concerned with privacy, however, you can forward the code to me by
> +email.
> +
> +We wish to review your source code, even if it is not functional, to
> +catch potential legal problems early.
> +
> +For example, to release your program properly under the GPL you must
> +include a copyright notice and statement permitting copying at the
> +beginning of every file of source code.  This is explained in
> +http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-howto.html.  Our review would help
> +catch potential omissions such as these.\n\n")
> 
> 
> 2) The following seems akward: copy a copy? Hum "include a copy" seems
> better.

They both mean the same.  I'm the same for me.  What do you think?


> +In addition, if you haven't already, please copy a copy of the plain
> +text version of the GPL, available from
> +\(http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.txt\), into a file named
> \"COPYING\".
> 
> 
> 
> 3) Also, I think the missing-gpl-info should be adapted to works even
> with LGPL (adding (L) before GPL should be ok) instead adding a
> different defun for each license.

The problem is that the GPL piece has more information. For instance
the GPL has a FAQ.

> 
> 4) I prefer the previous sentence that does not lead to think that we
> have to determine together whether a software run with free JVM or
> not. It the developer job.
> 
> Worst, the problem is not at all "unusual dependancies" but really
> "ugly dependancies".
> Usual dependancies for a java software are usually proprietary java
> suite. But proprietary java suite is exactly the ugly dependancy we
> want to avoid.

Yes, ok.  I did not see it that way.

> 
> 
>  (defun sv-problem-java ()
>    (interactive)
> -  "For software that uses Java, we want to check for ugly dependencies"
> -  (insert "
> -The key question here is to figure out if your project
> -can run on a Free Software Java suite
> -\(see http://www.gnu.org/software/java/ for more
> -information\).  Could you give us some explanation about
> -this point?\n\n")
> +  "We need to check Java code for unusual dependencies"
> +  (insert "We must determine whether your project can run on a Free
> +Software Java suite \(see http://www.gnu.org/software/java/ for more
> +information\).
> +
> +Please provide us more information about this point.\n\n")
>    (message "Inserted \(savannah.el\)")
> 
> 
> 
> 5) We do not "wish" to keep the to  maintain the distinction but we
> want to (want as a need, not a desire)

ok

> 
> 
>  (insert "Since your project does not seems to be part of the
> -GNU project yet, we cannot accept that project name
> -for it.  There are some non-GNU programs
> -with names such as gnuplot and gnuboy, but they are
> -not hosted in Savannah.\n
> -In the projects we host we want to keep the distinction
> - between GNU and non-GNU projects, to avoid confusion.\n
> -If your project is accepted into the GNU project, you
> - can change its name later on.\n\n")
> +(insert "Your project is not yet part of the GNU project, so we cannot
> +accept its current name.
> +
> +While there are non-GNU programs with names that include 'gnu', such
> +as gnuplot and gnuboy, they are not hosted on Savannah.\n We wish to
> +maintain the distinction between GNU and non-GNU projects.
> +
> +When your project is accepted into the GNU project you may change its
> +name.  You can do this by asking us.\n\n")
>    (message "Inserted \(savannah.el\)")
> 
> 
> 
> 6) We should try to use the same verbal forms like at www.gnu.org
> 
> According to http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html "qualify"
> fits more than "designate" in the expression "The license you chose
> qualifies your software as Free"...

ok

> 
> 
> @@ -196,61 +215,59 @@
>    (interactive)
>    "The license is incompatible with the GPL"
>    (insert "
> -The license you chose qualifies your software as Free
> -Software but it is incompatible with the GNU GPL.\n\n
> -We've chosen to host only software published under licenses
> -compatible with the GPL.  This is so that people can
> -combine files from the different projects hosted,
> -without licensing troubles.\n
> -If you're willing to switch to a GPL-compatible license, please
> -resubmit.\n
> -You can get a list of various licenses and comments about them
> -at http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html.
> -That should help you to understand our position.\n
> -If there's a particular reason to use only the license you chose
> -initially, you're welcome to tell us about it.\n")
> +The license you chose designates your software as free software but
> +it is incompatible with the GNU GPL.
> +
> +We host only software published under licenses compatible with the
> +GPL, which allows developers to combine files from any project without
> +fear of a licensing problem.
> +
> +If you are willing to switch to a GPL-compatible license, please
> +resubmit the project.\n You can get a list of various licenses and
> +comments about them at
> +http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html.
> +
> +If you still wish to use your current license, we will be happy to
> +discuss it with you.\n")
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The rest seems fine to me,
> 
> Regards,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rudy Gevaert <address@hidden> a tapot? :
> 
> >CVSROOT:     /cvsroot/savannah
> >Module name: savannah
> >Branch:      
> >Changes by:  Rudy Gevaert <address@hidden>   03/07/19 09:54:38
> >
> >Modified files:
> >     backend/gnu-specific: savannah.el 
> >
> >Log message:
> >     An update for the savannah.el file.  Many spelling and grammar 
> >     mistakes removed.
> >
> >CVSWeb URLs:
> >http://savannah.gnu.org/cgi-bin/viewcvs/savannah/savannah/backend/gnu-specific/savannah.el.diff?tr1=1.3&tr2=1.4&r1=text&r2=text
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >Savannah-cvs mailing list
> >address@hidden
> >http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/savannah-cvs

-- 
Rudy Gevaert                address@hidden              
Web page                    http://www.webworm.org
GNU/Linux for schools       http://www.nongnu.org/glms
Savannah hacker             http://savannah.gnu.org