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

[Jonathan Gonzalez V.]

"J. Ali Harlow" <address@hidden> writes:

Hi J. Ali Harlow,

You should follow that recommendation and license all your examples,
this will keep the freedom even in your documentation.

No so complicated as you think, you just have to include the Copyright
Notices and the little License Notices after the tittle. As you can
read in the fdl-howto, you just have to put the license notices in the
main file of your document(maybe nhproxy-docs.sgml?), if you cannot
include the copyright notices in all other files(maybe you should try
to find if gtk-doc can do this), you can create a file called
'DOCS.LICENSE' and include here, the copyright and the little license
notices for all other files.

Well, I'm not really sure how gtk-doc works, but if just take comments
and functions names, should not be a problem, because you aren't
linking the doc with the source code, so should not be a problem.

The file doc/ext_protocol.html, should keep the NGPL license.

Well, that's the main idea, but you include the GPL license notices
not the LGPL license notices. Remember that you cannot forget the
Copyright notices ;).

Related to the last line in license notices, can you please remove the
opensource.org reference? we want to avoid any confusion with Free
Software and Open Source. You can put this link:

         http://www.nethack.org/common/license.html

Sorry, I didn't see that file, no problem you just have to include the
verbatim copy of the license.

There's no problem in keep the current copyright holder, if your are
going to release it as a team, is ok :).

Please ask, we want to clarify any doubt from the users. 

Regards,

> On 17/12/04 03:02:14, Jonathan Gonzalez V. wrote:
>> "J. Ali Harlow" <address@hidden> writes:
>> 
>> Hi J. Ali Harlow,
>> 
>> First at all, apologies for the delay in my answer.
>
> Seemed pretty fast to me.
>
>> Related to the tarball, you have a lot of documentation, consider to
>> licensed under the GNU FDL, you can read more about the GNU FDL in
>> these URLs:
>> 
>>       http://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl-howto.html
>>       http://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl.html#SEC4
>
> I can see this is going to get complicated! Following the  
> recommendation in fdl.html#SEC4, I would want to release any example  
> code under parallel licenses (ie., both the LGPL and the NGPL) so that  
> my upstream users could include the code in their packages regardless  
> of whether they are relying on the NGPL or the LGPL.
>
> Things are further complicated by the fact that quite a bit of the  
> documentation that you see so far is auto-generated by gtk-doc (my  
> changes so far have been limited to nhproxy-sections.txt, nhproxy- 
> docs.sgml, tmpl/prxyclnt.sgml with various trivial tweaks to the other  
> files in tmpl).
>
> Finally, gtk-doc works by extracting documentation from the code  
> (though I haven't written any yet). Thus the majority of the meat of  
> the documentation will presumably be covered by the LGPL/NGPL licenses  
> anyway. I'm not clear how this affects the licensing of the reference  
> manual as a whole.
>
> The NhExt specification (in doc/ext_protocol.html), on the other hand,  
> is based on a document released solely under the NGPL and will  
> therefore presumably itself have to be released only under that  
> license.
>
>> You cannot use a range of years in the Copyright Notices, consider to
>> fix this.
>
> Yes, I realised that this was going to be a problem while I was reading  
> the savannah-hackers archive. It's going to take a while to trace back  
> in CVS to find which years actually apply, but I understand I need to  
> do this.
>
>> You have to include the License Notices of GNU LGPL, you cannot avoid
>> this. You can reference the NGPL writing the COPYING POLICIES section
>> at the end of the LGPL notices, or if you prefer, in this case you
>> can point to the user to license.txt.
>
> I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Are you suggesting that I use  
> something like this:
>
> ---------------------------- CUT ----------------------------
> This file is part of NetHack Proxy.
>
> NetHack Proxy is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
> it under the terms of the GNU Lesser General Public License as
> published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the
> License, or (at your option) any later version.
>
> NetHack Proxy is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
> but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
> MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  See the
> GNU Lesser General Public License for more details.
>
> You should have received a copy of the GNU Lesser General Public
> License along with NetHack Proxy; if not, write to the Free Software
> Foundation, Inc., 59 Temple Place, Suite 330, Boston, MA  02111-1307   
> USA
>
> Alternatively (at your option) you may instead choose to redistribute
> and/or modify NetHack Proxy under the terms of the NetHack General
> Public License.
>
> You should have receieved a copy of the NetHack General Public License
> along with NetHack Proxy; if not, download a copy from
> http://www.opensource.org/licenses/nethack.php
> ---------------------------- CUT ----------------------------
>
>> Related to this point you have the 'COPYING.LIB' file missing, this  
>> file should include a verbatim copy of the GNU LGPL that you can get  
>> from here:
>> 
>>       http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl.txt
>
> There is a verbatim copy of that file included as doc/LGPL.txt - if the  
> location and name of the file is important to you I guess I could move  
> it.
>
>> If the "Slash'EM Development Team" doesn't not exist and you are the
>> only developer on this project, you can change the copyright holder
>> to you, but, if there's more than one developer in previous release,  
>> you have to keep that copyright holder. If you still having doubts  
>> about this point, you can check this URL to learn more about this  
>> issue:>       
>> http://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain/html_node/Copyright-Notices.html
>
> I'm not sure that this document address the issue in question, but  
> still...
>
> The Slash'EM Development Team certainly does exist. It currently  
> consists of five people: Warren Cheung, Clive Crous, Paul Hurtley,  
> Pekka Rousu and myself. However, as I say, I was the only person who  
> contributed to any of the files which were previously part of Slash'EM  
> and are now part of nhproxy. From a legal point of view, the question  
> comes down to whether by choosing to attach a copyright notice to the  
> files in question which named the Slash'EM Development Team as the  
> copyright holder I would be deemed to have assigned the copyright to  
> them or whether I, in fact, still hold the copyright and the notices  
> should be corrected.
>
> In any event, I'm quite happy for the notices to remain as they are as  
> long as this will not cause any problems in the future.
>
>> If you are willing to make the changes mentioned above, please
>> provide us with an URL to an updated tarball of your project.  Upon  
>> review, we will reconsider your project for inclusion in Savannah.
>
> I will start work on fixing the dates in the copyright notices. I hope  
> you don't mind if I ask for some clarification on the points I raise  
> above before I make any more drastic changes.
>
> Many thanks,
>
> Ali.
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Savannah-hackers mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/savannah-hackers
>
>

-- 
"Emacs the only editor which has its own church"

pgpnRcTrfcyGs.pgp
Description: PGP signature