> Hi Rudy, > There are some adaptation that seems questionnable to me. Note that > the savannah.el has already been polished and review by rms.
> 1) In the following text, the "could be temporary" disappeared while it's > important. > Also, "legal issue" has been replaced by "legal problem". I think that > issue is more appropriate, more general. Some issues are not > technically "legal problems" but still need require discussion. You are right. > What concerns me is too see "copyright notices and copying permission > statements" converted to "copyright notice and statement permitting > copying". A "copying permission statements" is something pretty distinct, > like "copyright notice" and should not be turned into a phrase. I do not see any difference between the two, except that the one I proposed seems natural and easier to read. > > (defun sv-problem-tarball () > (interactive) > - "There's no tarball in the registration page" > - (insert "Please register your project again including a URL > -\(could be temporary\) where we can find the source code. > -The description you give during project registration will be > -read by Savannah administrators and not by the general public; > -if you are concerned with privacy, you can > -send me a copy of the code by e-mail, > - > -We would like to look at your source code, even if it is still > -not functional, to help you fix potential legal issues which > -would be harder to correct after the project gets approved. > -For example, to release your program properly under the GPL, > -you should write copyright notices and copying permission statements > -at the beginning of every source code file, > -as explained in http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-howto.html.\n\n";) > + "There's no tarball in the registration text" > + (insert "Please register your project again and include an URL > +pointing to the source code. The description you gave when > +registering will not be read by the general public. If you are still > +concerned with privacy, however, you can forward the code to me by > +email. > + > +We wish to review your source code, even if it is not functional, to > +catch potential legal problems early. > + > +For example, to release your program properly under the GPL you must > +include a copyright notice and statement permitting copying at the > +beginning of every file of source code. This is explained in > +http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-howto.html. Our review would help > +catch potential omissions such as these.\n\n") > > > 2) The following seems akward: copy a copy? Hum "include a copy" seems > better. They both mean the same. I'm the same for me. What do you think? > +In addition, if you haven't already, please copy a copy of the plain > +text version of the GPL, available from > +\(http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.txt\), into a file named > \"COPYING\". > > > > 3) Also, I think the missing-gpl-info should be adapted to works even > with LGPL (adding (L) before GPL should be ok) instead adding a > different defun for each license. The problem is that the GPL piece has more information. For instance the GPL has a FAQ. > > 4) I prefer the previous sentence that does not lead to think that we > have to determine together whether a software run with free JVM or > not. It the developer job. > > Worst, the problem is not at all "unusual dependancies" but really > "ugly dependancies". > Usual dependancies for a java software are usually proprietary java > suite. But proprietary java suite is exactly the ugly dependancy we > want to avoid. Yes, ok. I did not see it that way. > > > (defun sv-problem-java () > (interactive) > - "For software that uses Java, we want to check for ugly dependencies" > - (insert " > -The key question here is to figure out if your project > -can run on a Free Software Java suite > -\(see http://www.gnu.org/software/java/ for more > -information\). Could you give us some explanation about > -this point?\n\n") > + "We need to check Java code for unusual dependencies" > + (insert "We must determine whether your project can run on a Free > +Software Java suite \(see http://www.gnu.org/software/java/ for more > +information\). > + > +Please provide us more information about this point.\n\n") > (message "Inserted \(savannah.el\)") > > > > 5) We do not "wish" to keep the to maintain the distinction but we > want to (want as a need, not a desire) ok > > > (insert "Since your project does not seems to be part of the > -GNU project yet, we cannot accept that project name > -for it. There are some non-GNU programs > -with names such as gnuplot and gnuboy, but they are > -not hosted in Savannah.\n > -In the projects we host we want to keep the distinction > - between GNU and non-GNU projects, to avoid confusion.\n > -If your project is accepted into the GNU project, you > - can change its name later on.\n\n") > +(insert "Your project is not yet part of the GNU project, so we cannot > +accept its current name. > + > +While there are non-GNU programs with names that include 'gnu', such > +as gnuplot and gnuboy, they are not hosted on Savannah.\n We wish to > +maintain the distinction between GNU and non-GNU projects. > + > +When your project is accepted into the GNU project you may change its > +name. You can do this by asking us.\n\n") > (message "Inserted \(savannah.el\)") > > > > 6) We should try to use the same verbal forms like at www.gnu.org > > According to http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html "qualify" > fits more than "designate" in the expression "The license you chose > qualifies your software as Free"... ok > > > @@ -196,61 +215,59 @@ > (interactive) > "The license is incompatible with the GPL" > (insert " > -The license you chose qualifies your software as Free > -Software but it is incompatible with the GNU GPL.\n\n > -We've chosen to host only software published under licenses > -compatible with the GPL. This is so that people can > -combine files from the different projects hosted, > -without licensing troubles.\n > -If you're willing to switch to a GPL-compatible license, please > -resubmit.\n > -You can get a list of various licenses and comments about them > -at http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html. > -That should help you to understand our position.\n > -If there's a particular reason to use only the license you chose > -initially, you're welcome to tell us about it.\n") > +The license you chose designates your software as free software but > +it is incompatible with the GNU GPL. > + > +We host only software published under licenses compatible with the > +GPL, which allows developers to combine files from any project without > +fear of a licensing problem. > + > +If you are willing to switch to a GPL-compatible license, please > +resubmit the project.\n You can get a list of various licenses and > +comments about them at > +http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html. > + > +If you still wish to use your current license, we will be happy to > +discuss it with you.\n") > > > > > The rest seems fine to me, > > Regards, > > > > > > Rudy Gevaert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapot? : > > >CVSROOT: /cvsroot/savannah > >Module name: savannah > >Branch: > >Changes by: Rudy Gevaert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 03/07/19 09:54:38 > > > >Modified files: > > backend/gnu-specific: savannah.el > > > >Log message: > > An update for the savannah.el file. Many spelling and grammar > > mistakes removed. > > > >CVSWeb URLs: > >http://savannah.gnu.org/cgi-bin/viewcvs/savannah/savannah/backend/gnu-specific/savannah.el.diff?tr1=1.3&tr2=1.4&r1=text&r2=text > > > >_______________________________________________ > >Savannah-cvs mailing list > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/savannah-cvs -- Rudy Gevaert [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web page http://www.webworm.org GNU/Linux for schools http://www.nongnu.org/glms Savannah hacker http://savannah.gnu.org _______________________________________________ Savannah-hackers mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/savannah-hackers
