[Savannah-register-public] [task #14528] Submission of relax

[Ineiev]

Follow-up Comment #12, task #14528 (project administration):

> The  part seems to be there because they copied the boiler
plate ...
> We cannot judge their intent.

Probably we can't; I think this means that you should ask them to explain
their intent (preferably in a public statement). In corner cases the
interpretation may render their package nonfree (for example, if they prohibit
using names of users' organizations to endorse users' own products).

> This link should always have the newest changes:
>
> https://sourceforge.net/p/nmr-relax/code/ci/master/tarball

This doesn't work for me very well: first, it says "we have problems with
finding this tarball" and shows a button "request a snapshot again", when I
push it, it says "Generating snapshot..." without any further result.

___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Message sent via/by Savannah
  http://savannah.gnu.org/

[Savannah-register-public] [task #14621] Submission of Graph Model Library

[Brook Milligan]

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:

  

___
  Message sent via/by Savannah
  http://savannah.gnu.org/

[Savannah-register-public] [task #14621] Submission of Graph Model Library

[Ineiev]

Update of task #14621 (project administration):

  Status:None => In Progress
 Assigned to:None => ineiev 

___

Follow-up Comment #1:

Thank you for submitting your package!

All files should have valid copyright and license
notices; files like docs/class_hierarchy.md and CLA-entity.pdf
have none.

Then, Savannah doesn't support open source, we provide hosting
facilities for free software.

And sincerely speaking, it seems to me that your contribution
agreement assigns too much power to "Us": it enables "Us"
make the package proprietary; in my opinion a certificate of origin
like the one used by GnuPG would be more adequate.

___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Message sent via/by Savannah
  http://savannah.gnu.org/

[Savannah-register-public] [task #14622] Submission of Maelstrom

[Ineiev]

Update of task #14622 (project administration):

  Status:None => Done   
 Assigned to:None => ineiev 
 Open/Closed:Open => Closed 

___

Follow-up Comment #1:

Thank you, approving.

___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Message sent via/by Savannah
  http://savannah.gnu.org/

[Savannah-register-public] [task #14618] Submission of Gedalecin

[Diego]

Additional Item Attachment, task #14618 (project administration):

File name: gedalecin.tar.gz   Size:190 KB


___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Message sent via/by Savannah
  http://savannah.gnu.org/

[Savannah-register-public] [task #14618] Submission of Gedalecin

[Diego]

Follow-up Comment #2, task #14618 (project administration):

I've attached a new tar.gz with required changes. Although it may be not
necessary, I have also inserted the copyright notice in .htacces and
notice.htm. The only file without it is COPYING.txt that contains GNU GPL
text. Hope it is now OK. Thanks.  

___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Message sent via/by Savannah
  http://savannah.gnu.org/

[Savannah-register-public] [task #14529] Submission of Real Time Application Interface (for Linux)

[Marco Morandini]

Follow-up Comment #36, task #14529 (project administration):

New version: 
https://polimi365-my.sharepoint.com/personal/10112071_polimi_it/_layouts/15/guestaccess.aspx?docid=1a88c832516544005b0f2aa13fe620f20=Ad1gcdjR4WGs7wV5c1q_hmc


> base/include/.rtai_shm.h.swp is still in the tarball. 

deleted

> Is doc/doxygen/Doxyfile.in generated? It says Xapian
> is an "point.html open source" library; Savannah uses free 
> software, not open source. 

It works (and went) like this: a skeleton of the the configuration file
Doxyfile.in is first auto-generated by Doxygen.
Then, Doxyfile.in is customized by hand. When a new Doxygen introduces new
options, or deprecates old options, it gives to the user thee option to update
the configuration file with sane default, without modifying, if possible, the
user choices.
I made the error to follow Doxygen's suggestion, and updated the configuration
file. Doxygen added the comment descibing Xapian as "open source", even if
Xapian is GPL. I've changed that comment now. However, this is fragile, and
I'm not completely comfortable with the change because Xapian, in his own home
page, describes itself (wrongly, but this is not the point) as open source. 
Anyway: fixed.

> rtai-lab/scilab5/RTAI/license.txt says:
>
> Copyright (C) 2009 Roberto Bucher
> 2010-2011 Holger Nahrstaedt 

Fixed


> rtai-lab/scilab5/libs/scicoslibs.tgz lacks copyright and licensing notices.

This is more tricky, and I need your help in deciding what to do.
The tarball contained some precompiled libraries, with sources taken from
scilab, version 5.
Now: if one gets a pre-built scilab, or builds it from scratch, he does not
get those libraries build as we need them. 
Thus, the initial choice to distribute the pre-built libraries.
However, I don't think distributing binaries is right.
Thus, we got rid of the pre-built libraries (the -tgz is gone), and are
instead including the sources, taken from scilab 5, together with the Makefile
required to build them. I went through the added files, and fixed the
copyright notices (mostly removing the FSF address and adding the link to the
GPL, but also adding the text of the licenses).
However, we have a problem: many files (mostly those in
rtai-lab/scilab5/scicos_src) do have a copyright notice, but without year.
And, as these are not our files, but we have simply copied them, I really
don't know what year I could put there. 
So the question: is this ok? If it's not ok (I know it is not a "valid
copyright notice" as descibed in
http://savannah.gnu.org/maintenance/ValidNotices/ ) then please don't waste
your time on the tarball. And, if this is not ok, what would be better to do?

1) get rid of those sources, host somewhere a tarball with the sources,
packaged as we need them, and modify the Makefile in suche a way that the
tarball is automatically downloaded
2) do the same of 1), but with the pre-built libraries
3) give up out hope and go somewhere else (really hope this is not the case)
4) other ?

What do you suggest?

Thank you in advance,

Marco


___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Message sent via/by Savannah
  http://savannah.gnu.org/

[Savannah-register-public] [task #14618] Submission of Gedalecin

[Ineiev]

Follow-up Comment #3, task #14618 (project administration):

Thank you; however, save/gedalecin.db still seems to lack notices.

Also, I'd like to realize how you follow the licenses
of files in imgs/: some of them are under GPLv2+, other
under CC BY 3.0, some use LGPLv2.1+. Could you elaborate
what specific options of those licenses you use in order
to distribute the files in your package?

> The only file without it is COPYING.txt that contains GNU GPL text.

Why, the GPL does contain the notices:

> Copyright (C) 2007 Free Software Foundation, Inc. 
> Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies
> of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.

___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Message sent via/by Savannah
  http://savannah.gnu.org/