[Savannah-register-public] [task #13205] Submission of Claws Mail

[Ricardo Mones]

Follow-up Comment #10, task #13205 (project administration):

Hi Pavel,

> Hello, Ricardo! 
> > AFAIK default GPL usage is always 'or later' unless specifically
> > removed, 
> 
> The GPL says 
> 
> Now, "or any later version" is obviously not present in 
> 
> The GPL version is implicitly defined by the text of COPYING, so 
> it's GPLv3-only; someone might claim that it's GPLv-any, but it's 
> a stronger statement IMHO. 
> > but there's no problem in clarifying that in the header. 
> 
> See below. 
> >> formally, COPYING is a modification of the GPLv3, which is
> >> forbidden. 
> > 
> > That's simply not true, the license in COPYING is bit by bit the
> > content of http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.txt 
> > 
> > It's pretty clear where the license starts, 
> 
> You may be right here.

"may be"? :)

> > and the GPL howto¹ itself says 
> 
> You may have noticed that the GPL howto says 
> using the GPL unconditionally involves adding the copyright 
> notices and statement of copying permission to all sources. 

Yep, that's the reason I plan to change the two lines to include that.

> > “In GNU programs the license is usually in a file called COPYING.”
> > not that the COPYING file must contain only the license. 
> 
> In GNU programs every source file should contain copyright and 
> licensing notices as per [0] and [1], so no additional text 
> in COPYING is ever needed. 
> [0] https://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain/html_node/License-Notices.html 
> [1]
>
https://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain/html_node/License-Notices-for-Documentation.html


If you read it closely it says 'nontrivial' source file. These already
have the text recommended by GPL.

Since the meaning of nontrivial can be quite controversial I think that
the reduced pointer is more than enough for auxiliary files, see below.

> >> There are also other practical concerns: let us imagine that the 
> >> files are copied to another project where the texts of licenses 
> >> (for different files) are GPL, LGPL, MIT and a few more, and 
> >> COPYING is Apache 2.0; the context would be lost, unlike if you 
> >> put the notices as the GPL recommends. 
> > 
> > There's no way you can defend against bad copying practices: let's
> > imagine only the code is copied and not the comments, for example. 
> 
> There is no way to defend against all of them; however, there are
> ways to defend against some of them. also, plain copying of files is
> hardly a bad practice: if the authors use the methods the GPL
> recommends, there is absolutely nothing wrong. 
> For the original authors, it's virtually as easy to put such full 
> notices in their sources as the short reference, but the full notices 
> make it essentially easier to re-use the code for other people. 

A reduced version can be equally valid for trivial files, which is not
what I achieved with my first attempt. But given your feedback I think
this version

# Copyright 1999-2014 the Claws Mail team.
# This file is part of Claws Mail package, and distributed under the
# terms of the General Public License version 3 (or later).
# See COPYING file for license details.

contains all required elements.

> > Anyway when copying our two-line pointer is pretty clear where the
> > file came: 
> > 
> > # This file is part of Claws Mail package. 
> > # See COPYING file for license details. 
> > 
> > Even if this appear in a source file of a Foobar project, I think
> > everybody can understand the license referred there is in the
> > COPYING file of Claws Mail package, not in other random COPYING
> > files. 
> 
> Sure, but Claws Mail package may be unavailable at that point.

So, author of Foobar copied a Makefile.am from last copy of Claws
Mail available in the Universe and then shredded it!

Really? :) 


    _______________________________________________________

Reply to this item at:

  <http://savannah.gnu.org/task/?13205>

_______________________________________________
  Mensaje enviado vía/por Savannah
  http://savannah.gnu.org/