Re: [Savannah-hackers] submission of NetHack Proxy - savannah.nongnu.org

[Jonathan Gonzalez V.]

"J. Ali Harlow" <address@hidden> writes:

Hi J. Ali Harlow,

First at all, apologies for the delay in my answer.

Related to the tarball, you have a lot of documentation, consider to
licensed under the GNU FDL, you can read more about the GNU FDL in
these URLs:

      http://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl-howto.html
      http://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl.html#SEC4

You cannot use a range of years in the Copyright Notices, consider to
fix this.

You have to include the License Notices of GNU LGPL, you cannot avoid
this. You can reference the NGPL writing the COPYING POLICIES section
at the end of the LGPL notices, or if you prefer, in this case you can
point to the user to license.txt. Related to this point you have the
'COPYING.LIB' file missing, this file should include a verbatim copy
of the GNU LGPL that you can get from here:

      http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl.txt

If the "Slash'EM Development Team" doesn't not exist and you are the
only developer on this project, you can change the copyright holder to
you, but, if there's more than one developer in previous release, you
have to keep that copyright holder. If you still having doubts about
this point, you can check this URL to learn more about this issue:

     http://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain/html_node/Copyright-Notices.html

If you are willing to make the changes mentioned above, please provide
us with an URL to an updated tarball of your project.  Upon review, we
will reconsider your project for inclusion in Savannah.

Regards,


> Apologies for the delay. It took me rather longer to fix the current  
> crop of bugs so that make distcheck would produce something sensible  
> than I had hoped.
>
>> address@hidden (Jonathan Gonzalez V.) writes:
>>
>> Hi J. Ali Harlow:
>>
>> I reviewed your source code and I found some legal issues.
>>
>> You should use (C) instead (c), this should be fixed.
>
> I had forgotten that some countries require this. Done.
>
>> As you said you will licensed your program under the GNU LGPL, any
>> file with more than 10 lines should carry on the Copyright and  
>> Notices License, consider to read this URL to learn how to use the  
>> GNU LGPL::
>>
>>       http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html
>
> I think this confusion was caused by the complete mess I made of the  
> previous tarball which I sent to you. It being my first autotools  
> project, I hadn't understood the need for EXTRA_DIST and so there were  
> a number of important files which were left out of the tarball  
> including the license files. (I'm afraid there were also some source  
> files missed because they weren't yet being used for which I can only  
> apologise.)
>
> I hope that you will find the current setup of referring to the license  
> in a very brief note at the top of each source file and a full  
> description of the options available to users in license.txt  
> acceptable. I believe it meets the legal requirements in the UK and the  
> requirements of the LGPL. It may be that there are requirements of  
> other countries for which I am not aware, in which case I would be  
> grateful for a correction. Alternatively, Savannah may have  
> requirements which go beyond the legal requirements - again, I would be  
> grateful if you could let me know of any that may apply.
>
> I realise that the LGPL recommends including a rather longer  
> description of the license position at the head of every file but I am  
> somewhat reluctant to do this because I fear that it would either give  
> undue prominence to the LGPL at the expense of the NGPL or would need  
> careful re-writing which may introduce more problems than it would  
> solve. I guess that one option would be to simply include the contents  
> of licence.txt in the preamble of each file (dropping the last  
> paragraph about Aladdin MD5). At least this way there is less  
> opportunity for confusion.
>
> I await your advice.
>
>> What is the license of the files copyrighted by "Slash'EM Development
>> Team" ?
>
> That's a good question! When I originally began writing the files in  
> question I was expecting that it would be a team effort and I wanted to  
> avoid having long lists of copyright statements in the preamble so I  
> listed the copyright as you see it. My intention was that the Slash'EM  
> development team would thus be granted equal rights as myself and the  
> other authors to copy, sell etc. the code with no need to get back to  
> the original authors to get any further permission. As it turns out, I  
> was the only person who contributed anything to any of the files in  
> question so the whole thing was a bit of a waste of time. I'm not quite  
> sure how that leaves the legal status, but I see no real reason why I  
> couldn't just change the copyright notices to myself if that would be  
> any better.
>
>> I'll wait your updated tarball.
>
> I include a copy of nhproxy 0.8.2 and my current TODO list. I can make  
> further changes once we've agreed on the best approach.
>
> Many thanks,
>
> Ali.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Savannah-hackers mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/savannah-hackers

-- 
"Emacs the only editor which has its own church"

pgpt71hL4gz9t.pgp
Description: PGP signature