[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Savannah-hackers] submission of LifeBoat - savannah.nongnu.org
From: |
Rudy Gevaert |
Subject: |
Re: [Savannah-hackers] submission of LifeBoat - savannah.nongnu.org |
Date: |
Fri, 15 Aug 2003 05:23:02 -0400 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.3.28i |
Hi,
I'm evaluating the project you submitted for approval in Savannah.
On Thu, Aug 14, 2003 at 08:45:10PM -0400, address@hidden wrote:
>
> A package was submitted to savannah.nongnu.org
> This mail was sent to address@hidden, address@hidden
>
>
> Steve Stites <address@hidden> described the package as follows:
> License: gpl
> Other License:
> Package: LifeBoat
> System name: lifeboat
> Type: non-GNU
>
> Description:
> Project Purpose and Summarization :
>
> I have created a project called LifeBoat. LifeBoat is a script
> program which creates rescue CDs on a Linux box. It builds the
(This is the second time I said this:)
"Linux" is just a kernel of a more complex system
that we like to refer to as GNU/Linux, to emphasize
the ideals of the Free Software movement.
Would you mind changing references to Linux as an OS
to GNU/Linux?
For more information, see
http://www.gnu.org/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html
> LifeBoat
>
> Copyright (C) 2003 Steve Stites
> LifeBoat is released under the GNU General Public
> License. See the file called COPYING for a copy of the GNU
> General Public License.
This isn't the correct way to do it!! Please read my previous mail.
> Installation
... the rest isn't needed here ;)
> This is my second submission for LifeBoat. I have
> corrected everything that Rudy objected to except one thing.
Ah ok, can you mail me the updated tarball?
> Rudy suggested that I place my documentation under the GFDL.
> I read the GFDL and it says that the recipient cannot modify
> the documentation.
That is not true.
> I would hope that anyone who changes the
> source code would also change the documentation. So I don't
> care for the GFDL as I understand it. Actually I intended
> the GPL reference in the documentation to refer to the
> source code and not the documentation. If you think I have
> my documentation licensing legally scrambled I would be
> willing to remove the copyleft clause in the documentation,
> or make the documentation public domain, or whatever else
> you consider reasonable as long as I don't make the
> documentation unchangable.
I suggest you reread the GFDL. Other wise I'll help you understand
it.
Please let me know when sending the updated tarball what you prefer.
Rudy
--
Rudy Gevaert address@hidden
Web page http://www.webworm.org
GNU/Linux for schools http://www.nongnu.org/glms
Savannah hacker http://savannah.gnu.org