On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 06:11:08PM +0100, Nicodemo Alvaro wrote: > On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 11:40:34 +0100 > Sylvain Beucler <b...@gnu.org> wrote: > > The checkboxes are intended to be a _fast_ thing to read, which people > > cannot miss. If you make a checkbox "I agree with the requirements", > > pointing to a lenghty, canonical, all-corner-cases-covered, official > > requirements text, then you can expect that 98% people won't read it > > and will miss the essential points, a.k.a. the current checkboxes. > > I agree that many people do not read long, boring documents, but isn't > it still a massive problem that applicants are not complying with the > checklist?
I'm afraid that people will sometimes try to submit the project without doing the licensing clean-up, thinking "Are they _really_ gonna ask me to clean this up? Trying without doesn't hurt". I know I would :) In this case we type sv-problem-gpl-info and that's it. And, I don't think that shortening the check-list to 2 boxes will help in that regard. Maybe we could add "Yes, you need to fix it before we approve your project." > > What exactly is missing from > > http://savannah.gnu.org/register/requirements.php ? > > I'd start fixing this page, if need be. > > What I am hoping for is something that the reviewer can more easily > refer to. In order to fix it in my strategy, that page needs to be > precise, restructured, and simplified. So the document I sent was > intended to help fix it. The main issue I see with this numbered lists of items, is that there's no explanation. "Don't use open source" -> why? > > Also, I don't think that stuff like "you need to test your > > applications with a Free Java Suite" should be in the official > > requirements. They are infered from "No dependencies on non-free > > software". Where do you see this belong? > > I read it from the HowToGetYourProjectAppprovedQuickly document. Karl > is worried about losing the information on the wiki, so it seemed like > one of the things to include. The wiki has incremental backups and itself keeps revision history. I doubt we'll lose the information. > ["GPL" <=> "GPLv<current> or later"?] According to the GNU GPL, yes, but that's an unnecessary uncertainty. Let's ask users to stick to "GPLvX or later". -- Sylvain