Follow-up Comment #2, task #14621 (project administration): The comments by Ineiev seem to make the following three points:
- Some files lack in-file copyright notices. - Savannah supports free software (perhaps this is not). - A personal judgement is given regarding the contributor agreement. Below I address each in turn. In-file copyrights ============= As far as I can tell, the following is the entire list of files that lack copyright notices: CLA-entity.pdf CLA-individual.pdf VERSION docs/building_models.md docs/class_hierarchy.md tests/gdal/data/test_raster.tif tests/gdal/data/tl_2010_35_county10/tl_2010_35_county10.dbf tests/gdal/data/tl_2010_35_county10/tl_2010_35_county10.prj tests/gdal/data/tl_2010_35_county10/tl_2010_35_county10.shp tests/gdal/data/tl_2010_35_county10/tl_2010_35_county10.shx The first two are LaTeX-generated files included for convenience and clarity. I do not believe they can have copyrights injected. The third is a one-liner that simply states the version number. Does this really need a copyright notice? The two *.md files can have copyright notices, but that injects the notices into the Doxygen output in totally inappropriate places. I feel it is better to leave the notices out of these two files and preserve the clarity of the generated documentation, rather than slavishly follow a policy that all files should have copyright notices. The remainder are binary files that cannot be modified to include other elements without breaking the file formats. Overall, given the prominence of COPYING (following GNU guidelines) and the presence of notices in the remaining files (over 700), I feel that the copying terms are clearly spelled out. Free software ========== The point of this comment is unclear, but it would seem to imply that this software is not free software. However, it is distributed under the GPL3, which by definition of the Free Software Foundation makes it free software. Every guideline that FSF uses to define free software is concerned with the rights of people to use the software in various ways. The entire point of the GPL3, as described extensively by the Free Software Foundation (e.g., https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html) is to protect those rights for the users of software. By virtue of being distributed under the GPL3, this software cannot be more free according to these definitions. Contributions ========== There are many points of view regarding the nature of contributions to software projects, even within the free software community. It seems to me that the freest approach is to maintain the rights of users of the software, to maintain the rights of contributors with respect to their contributions, and to maintain the rights of the project to advance and protect the project as best as possible. Anything else imposes restrictions. The distribution of this software under the GPL3 permanently protects the rights of users, and therefore makes this free software by definition. The contributor agreement is intended to maintain the other rights. I feel that the best strategy with respect to contributions for a nascent project is entirely unclear, because there is much conflicting evidence and much uncertainty. However, ambiguity is likely not among the useful strategies. Putting aside philosophical feelings, which cannot be evaluated substantively, the analysis I refer to suggests that the strategy taken here allows contributors to retain all rights to contributions. It also allows "Us" to defend the project against infringement, something we would not have otherwise. Further, while individual contributors might have that right under some alternative approaches, it is not at all likely that they would prevail. Thus, the clauses in the GPL3 that stipulate various policies on derived works are likely to be ineffective without an interested entity. What good are those clauses in protecting users' rights if they cannot be protected? Taken together, these points suggest that the approach taken here is in fact the most compatible with broad goals of free software: protecting users, protecting contributors, and protecting projects. This project is unambiguously free software by virtue of releasing code under the GPL3. Whether or not it will foster a community of developers depends on the technical details the library seeks to address and the willingness of contributors to participate. As a new library, it remains to be seen how this experiment will play out. There is, however, no single correct answer to the question, what is likely to promote the most robust development community? Further, that is not a defining property of free software, nor could it be because it is entirely speculative. _______________________________________________________ Reply to this item at: <http://savannah.gnu.org/task/?14621> _______________________________________________ Message sent via/by Savannah http://savannah.gnu.org/