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

[Sylvain Beucler]

Hi,

> Here it is, the updating of the licensing and copyright notices was 
> mainly an automated process, the resulting changes were verified 
> manually, though.  Missing copyright notices were grepped for and the
> ones that stick out are:
>   examples/Manual/   - included in the docbook manual, copies of other 
>  examples, would clutter up the manual
>   examples/Field/StatigraphicFlow/tnt/  - copy of a version of the TNT 
> library which is in the public domain (as stated in the individuall files)
> I think these are ok.
> 
> There are now three license files, LICENSE (FreePOOMA license, Expat 
> type), LICENSE.pooma (original POOMA license), LICENSE.pete (original 
> PETE license, parts of PETE are included below src/PETE).
> 
> If there are questions left, just ask.

Yes, sorry but I still have some :)

First, there are still some old license notices from Pooma in src/
(among others, in makefiles). This license is acceptable at Savannah,
but this may not be what you want.

Then, basically all files of more than 10 lines should get a copyright
and license notice. Some do not in the archive. If these files are
used in an automated process, I'd suggest putting a 'README' file in
the directory containing those files for clarity.

Regarding the files from examples/Field/StatigraphicFlow/tnt/, it
would be good if not only the .h files contained the "public domain"
disclaimer.

Regarding the files in examples/Manual/, if they are included in the
manual, then they are subject to the license of the manual (see
below). You may want to put, again, a file pointing the user to the
original files (and their notices).

The manual is the most important issue. I can read:
  <copyright><year>2002</year><holder>CodeSourcery, LLC (<ulink url="http://www.
codesourcery.com/"></ulink>)</holder></copyright>
  <contractsponsor>Los Alamos National Laboratory<ulink url="http://www.lanl.gov
/"></ulink></contractsponsor>
  <legalnotice>
   <!-- FIXME: What is the correct legal notice? -->
   <para>All rights reserved.  This document may not be redistributed in any for
m without the express permission of the author.</para>
  </legalnotice>
 
The legal notice makes this documentation non-free. We suggest you use
the GNU FDL instead (or a GNU GPL-compatible license). I am sorry I
didn't see that one at first review.


Last, each important contributor should get one entire copyright notice. So the 
copyright notice would rather be:
// Copyright (C) 1998, 1999, 2000, 2002  Los Alamos National Laboratory
// Copyright (C) 1998, 1999, 2000, 2002  CodeSourcery, LLC


Ok, if you are still in a good mental shape after all that legal
stuff, then you can send me another updated tarball for me to
review :)

-- 
Sylvain