On 9/28/07, Sylvain Beucler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Alexander, > > Here's some criticism ;) > > On Tue, Sep 25, 2007 at 10:15:48PM +0300, Alexander Shulgin wrote: > > Hi, > > > > This guy is kind of uneasy one... ;) > > > > Here is my proposed follow-up: > > --------------------------------------- > > > > > I think placing one file in one directory and the other in another is > > > confusing. The files e.g. under doc/source are not covered only by > > > GFDL. > > > > It might be better to put both licenses at the top level if you fear > > that kind of confusion. > > > > > The README points to direction to read: > > > > > > doc/source The source files from which *.html files are generated > > > doc/source/LICENSE.txt Licensing information > > > > It is always good to have some clarifying references, please keep it. :-) > > The GFDL should be, in principle, a section of the documentation. I > don't feel it is necessary to enforce this strictly, but the copy of > license still should be in the same repository, whatever the name of > the file is.
So, having the following placement for licenses should be OK(?): ./COPYING (GPL) ./doc/source/COPYING.DOC (GFDL) I do not feel naming the most important concern here either, but just want to make sure OP understands he needs to provide verbatim copies of _both_ licenses. To this point we only had GNU GPL in the top directory or under doc/source. May be we can accept the project now, requiring the OP to arrange licenses properly before uploading the sources... > > Do you feel you have to change every single notice in your files to > > read COPYING.GNU-GPL instead? Anyway I would not recommend that, but > > just stick to common practice. :-) > > As long as there is a copy of the license, I think that's fine. No > need to enforce a naming convention. OK, may be I tried to be too strict there. :-) > There's no problem to provide support for proprietary software/formats > as long as it doesn't hamr users of free software. Basically, as long > as the free software solution is as good as, or better than the > proprietary solution, that's something we accept. The most obvious > example is port for Windows - they are acceptable as long as they are > not better than the GNU/Linux version. I do not see full analogy with Windows ports here, however, lets OP keep the ppt file if likes to. -- Cheers, Alex
