Re: [Savannah-register-public] [task #11224] Submission of Olivier Cailloux

[Olivier Cailloux]

Le 19/07/2011 21:31, Mario Castelán Castro a écrit :
> Follow-up Comment #3, task #11224 (project administration):
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA256
>
> 2011-07-19 in GNU Savannah task #11224: "Submission of Olivier
> Cailloux"
Hello and thank you for this review.
> > Sorry for the compression format. IMHO this was suitable for free
> > projects as this is a (AFAIK) freely available format
> > (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7z). I use the p7zip implementation
> > available in Ubuntu (Universe). Anyway, here is a tar gz one.
> It's not an issue whether something is "Freely available" but whether
> user freedoms are observed.  That's the case with 7z because of the
> p7zip existence.  I just pointed than it's not a common format and I
> have no installed tool to dearchive it.
What I meant was: free as in free speech (granted, my phrasing was 
incorrect). I understand your point.
> Regarding the tarball:
>
> In order to release your project properly and unambiguously under the
> LGPL, please place copyright notices and permission-to-copy statements
> at the beginning of every copyrightable file, usually any file more
> than 10 lines long.
>
> Currently several files lack licensing information and Copyright
> notices.
I think every .java file has the licensing information (the process is 
automated thanks to a classical maven tool). Please correct me if I am 
wrong.

Regarding the pom.xml files, which I guess you are referring to, these 
are maven pom files, and it is common practice, AFAIK, to include the 
license as metadata in <licenses> tags, as is done in jlp/pom.xml. These 
files are typically treated by automated tools (e.g. pom editor in 
eclipse or maven tools) and I'd prefer not to mess with them manually. 
IMHO the licenses tag does what it's there to do: say what license 
applies. Google has the same practice, look e.g. at the pom.xml file 
here: 
http://code.google.com/p/guava-libraries/source/browse/trunk/pom.xml , 
the pom.xml file does not contain any notice apart from the <licenses> 
tag. Contrast with any .java file, e.g. 
http://code.google.com/p/guava-libraries/source/browse/trunk/#trunk%2Fguava%2Fsrc%2Fcom%2Fgoogle%2Fcommon%2Fcache 
: those do start with the appropriate header.
> In addition, please include a copy of the plain text version of the
> GNU LGPL and the GNU GPL, available from
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.txt and
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl.txt.  Please note that, since the
> LGPL is a set of additional permissions on top of the GPL, it's
> important to include both licenses so users have all the materials
> they need to understand their rights.
These are in the build folder. Once again, this is typical for the maven 
setup: then the maven deployment scripts can automatically copy these 
files into the release .jar files for distribution.
> If some of your files cannot carry such notices (e.g. binary files,
> auto generated files), then you can add a README file in the same
> directory containing the copyright and license notices.  Check
> http://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain/html_node/Copyright-Notices.html for
> further information.
An exception holds for two .java files that I copied from an other 
project and which lie into the folder 
'javailp-solver-minisat-jni/src/main/java/net/sf/javailp/minisat': I 
left them unchanged (from 
http://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain/html_node/Copyright-Notices.html : “For 
files which are regularly copied from another project (such as 
‘gnulib’), leave the copyright notice as it is in the original.”)
> For more information, see
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-howto.html.
>
> I also noticed the project name given on the "Name" and "System name"
> fields don't match that of the tarball and it's contained files.
> Could you please provide a clarification on what's the real name?.
> This is project name, not developer name.
>
> We don't require anyone to (Not to) use a particular system for
> development (Only to make sure the software runs on a free one), but
> you might be interested in the note about Ubuntu in
> http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/common-distros.html#Ubuntu.
Yep, I know, and use Debian at work (I am the only one using a 
non-Windows system in my lab). But all in all, I feel that Ubuntu does 
play a positive role in promoting the free software values to the public 
(even if only partially)...

Once again I thank you for your reviewing. I understand the value of 
making sure the legal things are ok, and I hope we will be able to reach 
an agreement on the details to make my project free as can be, and 
published on savannah. Please tell me if I still missed something.
Olivier

> Regards and thanks for you interest in free software.
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iEYEAREIAAYFAk4l15wACgkQZ4DA0TLic4gakACfXGk4N2PGFtrPWJMqRJ43bfIn
> ujYAn3eSOAFh4KEWhQVl+Htg4ODWuY5T
> =avvQ
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>
>      _______________________________________________________
>
> Reply to this item at:
>
>    <http://savannah.gnu.org/task/?11224>
>
> _______________________________________________
>    Mensaje enviado vía/por Savannah
>    http://savannah.gnu.org/