[Savannah-register-public] [task #15279] Submission of Gash: Guile as Shell

[Ineiev]

Update of task #15279 (project administration):

  Status: In Progress => Done   
 Open/Closed:Open => Closed 

___

Follow-up Comment #10:

Thank you, approving.

I'm not sure .dir-locals.el is trivial, though.

___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Message sent via Savannah
  https://savannah.nongnu.org/

[Savannah-register-public] [task #15279] Submission of Gash: Guile as Shell

[Timothy Sample]

Follow-up Comment #9, task #15279 (project administration):

The response from the licensing team was:


Huh, that's kind of weird. I think adding the text at the top of the
CCO legal code would cover it, but if there's some objection to that
then let me know. Thank you for checking in on this.


Here's another tarball:

[https://files.ngyro.com/gash/gash-0.1-savannah-4.tar.gz]

Now COPYING.CC0 has a little note at the top saying where the file came from
and quoting the CC policy on it.  It is not as clear as I would like, but I
think it is as good as it can be given that I'm beholden to text of the CC
policy page.

I was pretty tempted to call this version "0.1-savannah-final", but I didn't
want to jinx it.  Let me know if there's anything else amiss, and thanks
again.

___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Message sent via Savannah
  https://savannah.nongnu.org/

[Savannah-register-public] [task #15279] Submission of Gash: Guile as Shell

[Timothy Sample]

Follow-up Comment #8, task #15279 (project administration):

Fantastic!  I see it was you who alerted the GNU Hello maintainers to the
issue back in January.  Thanks!  (Now I'm hoping they figure out a good way to
deal with it before I have to.)

I am happy to send a note to licens...@fsf.org.  I will CC you on it, and make
sure to provide all the relevant information.

___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Message sent via Savannah
  https://savannah.nongnu.org/

[Savannah-register-public] [task #15279] Submission of Gash: Guile as Shell

[Ineiev]

Follow-up Comment #7, task #15279 (project administration):

WRT GNU Hello: this is a confirmed bug,
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-hello/2019-01/msg0.html

On CC0, I think this is a real conflict that needs resolving; someone (you or
I or both of us) should ask licens...@fsf.org.

___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Message sent via Savannah
  https://savannah.nongnu.org/

[Savannah-register-public] [task #15279] Submission of Gash: Guile as Shell

[Timothy Sample]

Follow-up Comment #6, task #15279 (project administration):

It seems like we have three problems remaining, the change log, using CC0, and
the tests.  I will take each one in turn below.

I've created a new tarball that I hope addresses the first and last issue.  I
will wait for your thoughts on CC0 before addressing it.

New tarball:

[https://files.ngyro.com/gash/gash-0.1-savannah-3.tar.gz]

As a side note, I realize that I ask a lot of questions in the text that
follows.  I want to be conscious of the time and energy you are putting into
this, so feel free to say "I don't know off the top of my head" to any or all
of it.  :)

*ChangeLog*

I think I will solve this by starting the change log from version 0.1 when it
gets released, and by distributing an empty log for version 0.1.  Some earlier
commit log messages are not in the proper format, so this solves two
problems.

However, in the future, I would like to use the "gitlog-to-changelog" script
from Gnulib, but I'm not sure how to do it in a legally responsible way.  Do
you know if it is safe to assume anything about the license of Git commit
messages?  Obviously I can license my commit log messages however I like, but
what about messages from other contributors?  Does GNU have a framework for
this that I can follow?

Also, while looking for examples of how to use the script, I noticed that even
GNU Hello doesn't include copyright or license notices in its ChangeLog file. 
:/

*CC0*

I would really like to use CC0 for the README and NEWS files, since I know
that it is common practice to copy descriptions and information from these
files for blog posts and for software directories.  The next section

of the manual you linked says that this is acceptable.  I followed the link
there on how to use CC0, and came up with the result you saw.

I could remove the COPYING.CC0 file, but Creative Commons recommends

that I include it (and I take that page to imply that they came up with this
recommendation in collaboration with the FSF).  I'm a little shocked that the
CC0 license text doesn't say anything about copying itself.  There must be
something funny going on if the "Information for Maintainers of GNU Software"
manual suggest using CC0, but it is impossible to do so.  Do you know anything
more about this?  Should I contact Creative Commons or the FSF?

I know I can just use the GNU all-permissive license to dodge this issue, but
I really care about being clear and precise about licenses.  Indeed, that's
why I'm here in the first place!  :)  Saying "legally you have to attribute
the authors, but we know that you won't and we don't care" would be a little
sad.

That being said, in the interest of expediency, I could use the all-permissive
license for now while I try and sort out the CC0 stuff.

*Tests*

You make some really good points here!  Thanks.  I think I will explicitly
list all the files and use the normal license notice.  That's way better.  In
the future, I have plans to switch to putting multiple tests in a single file,
following the format used in the Oil project.  If/when that happens, this will
no longer be an issue.

Thanks again for your feedback!


___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Message sent via Savannah
  https://savannah.nongnu.org/

[Savannah-register-public] [task #15279] Submission of Gash: Guile as Shell

[Ineiev]

Follow-up Comment #5, task #15279 (project administration):

GNU documentation explicitly says that files like README and ChangLog also
should have copyright and license notices
.  For
copyright purposes, files more than ten lines long are copyrightable, and your
ChangeLog is much longer.

In your new tarball, README still has no copyright notice; COPYING.CC0 has
neither copyright nor license notice.

I'm not sure about tests/*: each file is small, but they do sum up in
something copyrightable.  I think one may add notices even when the files are
that small.  In any case, the form of license notice from the GPL should be
used: currently, COPYRIGHT suggests that only the GPL version from COPYING may
be used, which is incompatible with Savannah hosting requirements.  Then, to
avoid confusion, I suggest listing all relevant files when stating their terms
in a README. Also, I really dislike the wording "Unless otherwise stated".  In
its extreme, it may mean that the user has to look for additional conditions
all imaginable and unimaginable places, inside and outside your tarball.  I
believe you should know your terms and be able to state them at once.

___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Message sent via Savannah
  https://savannah.nongnu.org/

[Savannah-register-public] [task #15279] Submission of Gash: Guile as Shell

[Timothy Sample]

Follow-up Comment #4, task #15279 (project administration):

Okay!  I made the changes I mentioned.  Here’s the new tarball:

[https://files.ngyro.com/gash/gash-0.1-savannah-2.tar.gz]

___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Message sent via Savannah
  https://savannah.nongnu.org/

[Savannah-register-public] [task #15279] Submission of Gash: Guile as Shell

[Timothy Sample]

Follow-up Comment #3, task #15279 (project administration):

Just a quick followup on the "guile-rules.am" file. It looks like the
essential parts of the file come from Guile itself. Guile has a file
"am/guilec" which serves the exact same function. Sadly, it does not have a
copyright notice! Judging from the commit history, it should be:


Copyright 2008-2012,2016 Free Software Foundation, Inc.


Should I use this? It's not something I looked at when I was writing
"guile-rules.am", but it is (judging by the commit dates and content) the
source of the other files I looked at. The really telling part is the comment,
which was added to the file at about the same time as the mailing list
discussion it references took place. This comment is nearly always copied
verbatim when people adapt this Automake code into their own projects.

I think I will fix up the package in the ways I have mentioned, then create a
new tarball. That way, you can look at the whole result and continue with your
review as usual.

___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Message sent via Savannah
  https://savannah.nongnu.org/

[Savannah-register-public] [task #15279] Submission of Gash: Guile as Shell

[Timothy Sample]

Follow-up Comment #2, task #15279 (project administration):

Thanks for the quick review!

Sorry for missing the notice in README. Guix and Guile omit it, and they were
among the packages that I was using for examples. I will put a notice at the
bottom, like in Bash.

I searched for all the files missing the word "copyright", and came up with
the following. Most of them are omissions that I can fix easily, but I would
appreciate some advice for a few.

*Guile Rules*

I'm having a hard time tracking the provenance of the build-aux/guile-rules.am
file. The same text exists in basically all Guile projects, and many of them
have different notices. I honestly cannot say which projects I based this file
on anymore (I looked at quite a few and synthesized them). My best idea is to
pick a reasonable source (like Guix or 8sync) and use that notice. Is that
acceptable?

*Tests*

There are 199 tiny test files. Bash handles this by a special COPYRIGHT file
that covers all the tests. Can I do the same?

*Trivial*

I would argue that these files are "trivial". However, if you disagree, please
let me know and I will add a notice.

* AUTHORS
* ChangeLog
* .dir-locals.el
* .gitignore (only in the Git repository)

*Omissions*

I know the authorship and licenses of these files, and can add a notice
easily.

* build-aux/gitlab-ci.yml
* build-aux/pre-inst-env.in
* configure.ac
* doc/syntax.txt
* guix.scm
* Makefile.am
* NEWS
* README
* test.sh
* tests/spec/check-spec
* tests/spec/Makefile.am

Let me know what you think, and then I will prepare a new tarball following
your suggestions.

Thanks again!

___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Message sent via Savannah
  https://savannah.nongnu.org/

[Savannah-register-public] [task #15279] Submission of Gash: Guile as Shell

[Ineiev]

Update of task #15279 (project administration):

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

___

Follow-up Comment #1:

Please make sure that all copyrightable files in your package have valid
copyright and license notices
: the first file I
checked, README, had no copyright notice.

> I am unsure about whether I should apply for this to be official
GNU software or not.

I suggest registering on Savannah first; we'll be able to make it a GNU
package later if needed.

___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Message sent via Savannah
  https://savannah.nongnu.org/

[Savannah-register-public] [task #15279] Submission of Gash: Guile as Shell

[Timothy Sample]

URL:
  

 Summary: Submission of Gash: Guile as Shell
 Project: Savannah Administration
Submitted by: samplet
Submitted on: Tue 21 May 2019 03:17:49 AM UTC
 Should Start On: Tue 21 May 2019 12:00:00 AM UTC
   Should be Finished on: Fri 31 May 2019 12:00:00 AM UTC
Category: Project Approval
Priority: 5 - Normal
  Status: None
 Privacy: Public
Percent Complete: 0%
 Assigned to: None
 Open/Closed: Open
 Discussion Lock: Any
  Effort: 0.00

___

Details:

A new project has been registered at Savannah 
This project account will remain inactive until a site admin approves
or discards the registration.


= Registration Administration =

While this item will be useful to track the registration process,
*approving or discarding the registration must be done using the specific
Group Administration
 page*,
accessible only to site administrators,
effectively *logged as site administrators* (superuser):

* Group Administration



= Registration Details =

* Name: *Gash: Guile as Shell*
* System Name:  *gash*
* Type: non-GNU software and documentation
* License: GNU General Public License v3 or later



 Description: 
Gash is a POSIX-compatible shell written in Guile Scheme.  It provides
both the shell interface, as well as a Guile library for parsing shell
scripts.  Gash is designed to bootstrap Bash as part of the Guix
bootstrap process.  We are planning to develop Gash into a
general-purpose shell and tool for building interfaces between Scheme
and the shell.




 Other Software Required: 
Building and running Gash requires:

GNU Guile
LGPLv3+


Optionally, for readline support:

GNU Guile Readline Module
GPLv3+


Build dependencies:

Gash uses the GNU Build System, so building a distribution tarball
requires GNU Autoconf, GNU Automake, pkg-config, and GNU Texinfo.  In
addition, certain files are made using scripts from Gnulib that need
Git and Perl.

Building from a distribution tarball requires the usual POSIX tools
and GNU Guile.

Optional build dependencies:

Test coverage reports can be generated with:

LCOV
GPLv3+


Additional tests can be obtained and used from

Oil
Apache License 2.0


which in turn requires Python 2, GNU Bash, and GNU Time.

Bootstrap testing can be done using

GNU Guix
GPLv3+




 Other Comments: 
A Git repository is available at .

I am unsure about whether I should apply for this to be official
GNU software or not.  On the one hand, it overlaps with Bash quite a
bit.  On the other hand, it plays an important part in bootstrapping
GNU Guix along with the GNU Mes project.

The manual is sorely lacking at the moment.  I plan to flesh it out
after an initial release (or even before, depending on how long the
Savannah review process takes).



 Tarball URL: 
https://files.ngyro.com/gash/gash-0.1-savannah.tar.gz






___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Message sent via Savannah
  https://savannah.nongnu.org/