[task #16044] Submission of Ladspa Tool Kit

Update of task #16044 (project administration): Status: In Progress => Cancelled Open/Closed:Open => Closed ___ Follow-up Comment #16: Cancelling

[task #16044] Submission of Ladspa Tool Kit

Follow-up Comment #15, task #16044 (project administration): [comment #14 comment #14:] > Found here : https://www.quora.com/Does-Glibc-use-GPL-license-Because-I-found-GPL-in-some-source-file-nscd-cache-c that glibc is : Why do you keep looking for what third parties say about the license of Glib

[task #16044] Submission of Ladspa Tool Kit

Follow-up Comment #14, task #16044 (project administration): Found here : https://www.quora.com/Does-Glibc-use-GPL-license-Because-I-found-GPL-in-some-source-file-nscd-cache-c that glibc is : Over a core of ~15000 files with a million lines of code, only 472 files belong to compilable code where a

[task #16044] Submission of Ladspa Tool Kit

Follow-up Comment #13, task #16044 (project administration): [comment #12 comment #12:] > > Err... we were speaking about copyright... > Sorry, I got confused, yes, I'm ok with the copyright. And I confused you once more: it doesn't matter whether you are ok with the copyright system, what matter

[task #16044] Submission of Ladspa Tool Kit

Follow-up Comment #12, task #16044 (project administration): > Err... we were speaking about copyright... Sorry, I got confused, yes, I'm ok with the copyright. > LGPL? No, sorry I didn't use LGPL, nowhere, never. > Well, you'll be able to claim... > Can you check the license... Ok, I spent that

[task #16044] Submission of Ladspa Tool Kit

Follow-up Comment #11, task #16044 (project administration): [comment #10 comment #10:] > > Was that correct? > > ladspa-tool-kit is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify ... Err... we were speaking about copyright notices, and now you discuss license and license notices; don't yo

[task #16044] Submission of Ladspa Tool Kit

Follow-up Comment #10, task #16044 (project administration): > Was that correct? ladspa-tool-kit is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your

[task #16044] Submission of Ladspa Tool Kit

Follow-up Comment #9, task #16044 (project administration): [comment #8 comment #8:] > > > >What were you advised? > ... > > > So I put myself (My own name) on copyright. (file #51945) > > Was that correct? > Don't know, that's done, (file #51945) > Feel free to let me know if something isn't corr

[task #16044] Submission of Ladspa Tool Kit

Follow-up Comment #8, task #16044 (project administration): > > >What were you advised? ... > > So I put myself (My own name) on copyright. (file #51945) > Was that correct? Don't know, that's done, (file #51945) Feel free to let me know if something isn't correct. The liscence of glibc is really

Re: [task #16044] Submission of Ladspa Tool Kit

Hi all, "Louis, please correct any part of this that appears incorrect" You may have called me Louis. If it is the case, I let you know that I'm very rare case of French whose first name is really Lewis. Even if, once translated into french Lewis -> Louis, my first mane remains Lewis even here in

Re: [task #16044] Submission of Ladspa Tool Kit

Hi Ineiev, all, On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 9:53 AM Ineiev wrote: > > Follow-up Comment #7, task #16044 (project administration): > > [comment #6 comment #6:] > > >What were you advised? > ... > > So I put myself (My own name) on copyright. (file #51945) > > Was that correct? I think it is. The sub

[task #16044] Submission of Ladspa Tool Kit

Follow-up Comment #7, task #16044 (project administration): [comment #6 comment #6:] > >What were you advised? ... > So I put myself (My own name) on copyright. (file #51945) Was that correct? > >Will you answer my question? > >>"We encourage reasonably descriptive system names, "ltk" is too sho

[task #16044] Submission of Ladspa Tool Kit

Follow-up Comment #6, task #16044 (project administration): Hi, >What were you advised? >>"Per the feedback we received on IRC the other day, I think you should >>leave your own name in the copyright spaces in the header comments, >>etc. for now." (recieved by mail, Ineiev and savannah-register-p

[task #16044] Submission of Ladspa Tool Kit

Follow-up Comment #5, task #16044 (project administration): I'm confused a little bit. What were you advised? Have you any questions remaining? Will you answer my question? ___ Reply to this item at:

Re: [task #16044] Submission of Ladspa Tool Kit

Hi Corwin, Ineiev, and others if there are, You said that you checked on IRC. If you want to boost up my reactions, feel free to share server and channel information to meet me on IRC. I'm very often available from T20:30:00+01:00 to T23:30:00+01:00 in summer and from T20:30:00+02:00 to T23:30:00+

[task #16044] Submission of Ladspa Tool Kit

Follow-up Comment #4, task #16044 (project administration): I've been advised to put myself on copyright. This answered the first question I had in the last post. Following are pending and does not need quick reply. Attached, you'll find the same tarball with the new copyright. Thanks for advic

Re: [task #16044] Submission of Ladspa Tool Kit

Hi Lewis, Per the feedback we received on IRC the other day, I think you should leave your own name in the copyright spaces in the header comments, etc. for now. Once you are approved and good to go for non-gnu SVH, then I think we can circle back to copyright assignment. Regards, Corwin On Thu

[task #16044] Submission of Ladspa Tool Kit

Follow-up Comment #3, task #16044 (project administration): Hi once again, are you okay if I put FSF as owner? : Copyright © 2020, 2021 Free Software Foundation, Inc. This file is part of ladspa-tool-kit. I gave the tarball of the sources only. The complete packages encapsulates it with some do

[task #16044] Submission of Ladspa Tool Kit

Follow-up Comment #2, task #16044 (project administration): I'm ok for landspa-tool-kit as long as the packages can be LTK and LTK-devel I'm gonna give here the licences of the dependencies : gcc <- GPLv3+ with GCC Runtime Library Exception glibc <- LGPL-2.0 make <- GPLv3+ libunwind <- MIT One

[task #16044] Submission of Ladspa Tool Kit

Update of task #16044 (project administration): Status:None => In Progress Assigned to:None => ineiev ___ Reply to this item at:

[task #16044] Submission of Ladspa Tool Kit

Follow-up Comment #1, task #16044 (project administration): We encourage reasonably descriptive system names, "ltk" is too short; what about "landspa-tool-kit"? Then, please list licenses of your dependencies, and be sure to add valid copyright and license notices

[task #16044] Submission of Ladspa Tool Kit

URL: Summary: Submission of Ladspa Tool Kit Project: Savannah Administration Submitted by: codecolla Submitted on: Fri 10 Sep 2021 09:17:40 PM UTC Should Start On: Fri 10 Sep 2021 12:00:00 A