Re: [Savannah-hackers] submission of LifeBoat - savannah.nongnu.org

[Rudy Gevaert]

Hi,

I'm evaluating the project you submitted for approval in Savannah.

On Thu, Aug 14, 2003 at 08:45:10PM -0400, address@hidden wrote:
> 
> A package was submitted to savannah.nongnu.org
> This mail was sent to address@hidden, address@hidden
> 
> 
> Steve Stites <address@hidden> described the package as follows:
> License: gpl
> Other License: 
> Package: LifeBoat
> System name: lifeboat
> Type: non-GNU
> 
> Description:
> Project Purpose and Summarization :
> 
>      I have created a project called LifeBoat.  LifeBoat is a script 
> program which creates rescue CDs on a Linux box.  It builds the

(This is the second time I said this:)

"Linux" is just a kernel of a more complex system
that we like to refer to as GNU/Linux, to emphasize
the ideals of the Free Software movement.


Would you mind changing references to Linux as an OS
to GNU/Linux?

For more information, see
http://www.gnu.org/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html


>                                     LifeBoat
> 
>                          Copyright (C) 2003 Steve Stites
>          LifeBoat is released under the GNU General Public
> License. See the file called COPYING for a copy of the GNU
> General Public License.

This isn't the correct way to do it!!  Please read my previous mail.


> Installation

... the rest isn't needed here ;)


>      This is my second submission for LifeBoat.  I have
> corrected everything that Rudy objected to except one thing.

Ah ok, can you mail me the updated tarball?

> Rudy suggested that I place my documentation under the GFDL.
> I read the GFDL and it says that the recipient cannot modify
> the documentation.  

That is not true.

> I would hope that anyone who changes the
> source code would also change the documentation.  So I don't
> care for the GFDL as I understand it.  Actually I intended
> the GPL reference in the documentation to refer to the
> source code and not the documentation.  If you think I have
> my documentation licensing legally scrambled I would be
> willing to remove the copyleft clause in the documentation,
> or make the documentation public domain, or whatever else
> you consider reasonable as long as I don't make the
> documentation unchangable.

I suggest you reread the GFDL.   Other wise I'll help you understand
it.

Please let me know when sending the updated tarball what you prefer.

Rudy

-- 
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