Follow-up Comment #4, task #14621 (project administration): Thank you for the clarifications.
I believe I misunderstood your comment on the LaTeX-generated files. I now understand you to be referring to attributions in the rendered information, not in the PDF files per se. I have added appropriate attributions to the text of the files. After additional experimentation, the generated documentation does not contain spurious copyright notices. (It did before.) Consequently, I have added copyright notices to the markdown files that lacked them. I have added README files to the two directories containing binary files. This addresses all the copyrights that should be in files. I believe some of the confusion regarding intent was inadvertent wording. I do indeed intend this to be free software so I have changed wording in CONTRIBUTING to reflect that. However, I also feel that the US legal situation regarding FOSS is considerably more uncertain than Germany's. Further, there are remedies that gpl-violations.org has not sought in the past and probably cannot seek in the US given differences in legal systems. Those remedies, however, are possible to seek under the contributoragreements.org wording. Thus, I feel that I have adopted an approach that in fact protects all participants in this project and does in fact seek to foster development of free software. In any case, until there are any participants other than myself, this is moot. The software has great potential utility, but is highly technical mathematically and computationally; thus, whether it attracts interest remains an experiment. _______________________________________________________ Reply to this item at: <http://savannah.gnu.org/task/?14621> _______________________________________________ Message sent via/by Savannah http://savannah.gnu.org/