possible deviations from GNU Guidelines

[Ineiev]

Hello,

Recently, Samuel Thibault pointed out that some parts of GNU hello
don't follow guidelines for GNU package maintainers very closely.
I checked the most recent release, hello-2.10, and it seemed
to me that a few files weren't arranged as recommmended in [0].

[0] https://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain/maintain.html.gz#Legal-Matters

(I don't report against the current VCS HEAD because the results
of bootstrapping could depend on the versions of software used.)

In short, the guidelines say,

* every file should have valid copyright and license notices;
* if the format of the file has no place for comments, these notices
  should be written in a README file in the same directory;
* if the file is generated, the notice should at least say that it's
  generated and what files it's generated from;
* if the file is copied from another package (including GNU ones),
  the maintainer who copies the file should ensure its compliance.

So,

contrib/de_franconian_po.txt
po/fa.po po/he.po po/it.po po/ka.po po/nn.po po/pt.po
lack a license notice.

ABOUT-NLS
build-aux/prefix-gnulib-mk
contrib/evolution.txt
lib/memchr.valgrind
po/bg.gmo po/ca.gmo po/da.gmo po/de.gmo po/el.gmo po/eo.gmo po/es.gmo
po/et.gmo po/eu.gmo po/fa.gmo po/fi.gmo po/fr.gmo po/ga.gmo po/gl.gmo
po/he.gmo po/hr.gmo po/hu.gmo po/id.gmo po/it.gmo po/ja.gmo po/ka.gmo
po/ko.gmo po/lv.gmo po/ms.gmo po/nb.gmo po/nl.gmo po/nn.gmo po/pl.gmo
po/pt_BR.gmo po/pt.gmo po/ro.gmo po/ru.gmo po/sk.gmo po/sl.gmo
po/sr.gmo po/sv.gmo po/th.gmo po/tr.gmo po/uk.gmo po/vi.gmo
po/zh_CN.gmo po/zh_TW.gmo
po/hello.pot
po/Makevars
po/address@hidden po/address@hidden
po/insert-header.sin po/remove-potcdate.sin po/Rules-quot
ChangeLog
NEWS
README-release
lack copyright and license notices.

Do I misinterpret anything?

signature.asc
Description: Digital signature