On Sun, 2009-01-25 at 10:11 +0100, Sebastian Gerhardt wrote: > Hi Ted, > > > On Fri, 2009-01-23 at 19:05 -0500, Ted Smith wrote: > > Taking stab #2 at the whole "reviewing projects" thing -- My notes on > > this project: > > thanks for your help. > I saw the first maintainer still hasn't answered yet. Do you think we > should give him a time limit? > > I'm not sure what standard procedure is. In a few days it'll have been a month since we initiated contact, though -- that seems like a fitting time to ping him.
> > LuaGlobal.lua -- no copyright statement > > dlgTimersMainArea -- no copyright statement (file is trivial) > > dlgSystemMessageArea.cpp -- no copyright statement (file is trivial) > > dlgTriggersMainArea.cpp -- no copyright statement (file is trivial) > > ctelnet.cpp -- GPL seems applied incorrectly, copyright date range > > > > No copyright notice in /src/ui (XML data files) > > No copyright notice on flowchart in /src/doc > > No copyright notice pertaining to any of the images, in /src or in > > /src/icons > > No overarching project README > > Dependancies not clear (QT4, Lua, ?qcsi?) > > > > Uses term "linux" in name of linux.conf, and in about_dialog.ui. > > > > "Documentation" has no license. > > > > Project already has its own website and sourceforge account. > > > > *NB*: I do not have KDevelop installed and thus could not browse the > > source the way the developer intended. > > > > Should I clean this up into something that can be sent to the developer? > > This looks fine to me. Of course, some flaws are more serious than > others and I usually try to hint the maintainer about this. For example, > the unclear licensing of the media files will certainly block the > package until this has been sorted out whereas the README is more like a > recommendation. If the sparse documentation has no explicit license text > in them, it would be ok if the author writes about this in the README. > > I woulnd't object if a file is called "linux.conf". Often, targets in > makefiles are labeled "linux" too and we don't mind. But in any > "advertising" context, we should be firm. (Program output and dialogs, > project description, etc.) > Specifically, their "About" page says that someone " is in charge of developing and building binary packages of Mudlet for Linux, Windows and Apple." > > As regarding the trivial files, I rate them on the question whether they > will be likely to grow in the course of time. If they do, the maintainer > can as well put proper copyright&licensing text in them right away. And > if we tell him now, he will most probably keep up this practice in the > future. The same goes for the date ranges. > > The maintainers are welcome to have they own project homepages but they > should give a statement about what they plan to do with the sourgeforge > account. > I found this out after I sent that email: they apparently also have a Launchpad account which they use for bug tracking. I'm guessing that has the same treatment as a Sourceforge account? > Again, thanks for you help in reviewing such a big package. > > Sebastian > I've since discovered (from here: http://forums.mudlet.org/topic/mudlet-pre-alpha-installation-notes ) the full list of dependences: * QT 4 development tools - GPLv(2|3) * qscintilla version 2.2 or higher - GPLv2(only?) and Modified BSD * lua version 5.1 or higher - Modified BSD which of course are all free. It also seems that Mudlet builds on Windows, and that a lot of development takes place with Windows as a target. Could this be problematic, or one of the things that we ask the developer about?
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
