k: Any
___
Follow-up Comments:
---
Date: Mon 09 Sep 2024 04:02:45 PM UTC By: John Cage
A new group has been registered at Savannah.
This group will remain inactive until a site admin appro
Follow-up Comment #2, task #16584 (group administration):
[comment #1 comment #1:]
> Please make sure that all [//savannah.gnu.org/maintenance/ValidNotices/
copyrightable files] in your tarball have a public domain dedication; for
images, please put it in a README file in the same directory with t
Follow-up Comment #4, task #16584 (group administration):
Thank you for your patience to evaluate.
I add a license(LGPLv3) to this project and revised files to conform
guidelines.
I add copyright notice to each .c and .h file.
Please see the attachment of the newest version of StoneValley project.
Follow-up Comment #5, task #16584 (group administration):
I am sorry to bring inconvenience to you.
At last I add LGPLv3 and copyright notice to .c and .h files and I rewrote
README file.
Please evaluate the file in the attachment of comment #4.
If that were not OK, I would revise the project to c
Follow-up Comment #7, task #16584 (group administration):
Thank you to show me the guide to apply LGPL license.
I have carefully checked the document you've mentioned and revised whole
project.
Here's the newest version of StoneValley project in the attachment.
Please evaluate it, thank you.
[com
Follow-up Comment #9, task #16584 (group administration):
Okay, I don't believe this ominous day would bring bad luck to my project.
You could evaluate it whenever as you wish, take you time sir/madam.
I would like to post final version here in the attachment.
[comment #8 comment #8:]
> Thank you
Follow-up Comment #11, task #16584 (group administration):
Yes, I have read the LGPL.
> Also add a COPYING.LESSER file with a copy of the GNU LGPL, if you use
that.
Also means both, too. The above sentence can be translated as "Add a
COPYING.LESSER file and a copy of the GNU LGPL, if you use that.
ious version of codes that I uploaded in the
attachment(That is file #56427).
Sincerely,
John Cage
[comment #12 comment #12:]
> It seems to me, you misinterpreted it, again. COPYING.LESSER should contain
the text of the GNU LGPL.
>
> Please read the LGPL once more. The text is far from s
Follow-up Comment #41, task #16584 (group administration):
> I'm afraid this still sounds confusing to me. We have discussed that
> the copyright holders were not bound by the licenses they apply to
> their programs. Don't you remember that?
Yes, I remember. The license can not restrict what t
Follow-up Comment #43, task #16584 (group administration):
> I don't think I understand what 'use the license as a guide' means.
As the previous conversations mentioned the LGPL and the GPL license can't
force copyright holders what to do, at the same time, if I want to send
StoneValley to other
Follow-up Comment #37, task #16584 (group administration):
> You are right, the GPL includes that passage; however, it speaks
> about the LGPL as about a completely different license, and it's
> written after the end of terms and conditions.
> I think you can't find any provisions requiring that
Follow-up Comment #39, task #16584 (group administration):
> > Yes, you are correct. Requiring a copy of LGPL a the source tarball is a
set
> > of additional permissions. So, I can follow your guide add or remove a
copy of
> > LGPL.
> I'm not sure I understand this. Don't you understand yoursel
Follow-up Comment #35, task #16584 (group administration):
> Let us see where that passage mentions the LGPL.
> The LGPL is definitely not "copyright notice".
> The LGPL isn't a notice stating that "this License" (that is, the GPL)
applies to the code.
> The LGPL has nothing to do with "any non-
Follow-up Comment #47, task #16584 (group administration):
> If you distribute your package under those conditions, you may want to
> make sure that users are allowed at least redistribute it as is; if you
> don't, they'll be technically required to do some work before they may
> redistribute it,
Follow-up Comment #45, task #16584 (group administration):
> The GPL has a section for the copyright holders after the end of terms
> and conditions, "How to Apply These Terms to Your New Programs".
> Since other parts are written for the recipient do you refer to that
> section when you say 'gui
Follow-up Comment #49, task #16584 (group administration):
> Thank you! Now you should learn to specify the licensing terms of > your
package consistently. In the current tarball, one part of the > README file
says they are LGPLv3+, another part says they are LGPLv3. This is confusing;
moreove
Follow-up Comment #33, task #16584 (group administration):
> Thank you. You are right, it's important to distinguish various cases
> of distribution. What about the case we are discussing, distributing
> unmodified source code?
To talk about the case of distributing unmodified source code, sin
Follow-up Comment #62, task #16584 (group administration):
I basically refer to this: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl-1.3.html and this:
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/using-gfdl.en.html and all the links you gave
to me to refine the tarball of StoneValley.
I add this:
"Copyright (C) YEAR YOUR
Follow-up Comment #70, task #16584 (group administration):
> Why do you think it is redundant?
Because if I include that block of text in three documents, I have to include
GFDL three times in those three documents which seems redundant.
Follow-up Comment #68, task #16584 (group administration):
> 'Documentation' is an uncountable noun, it ordinarily has no plural.
Perhaps what you mean is 'documents'. Please let us distinguish these words.
I agree with you, sir/madam. It was my mistake to garbled documents and
documentation t
Follow-up Comment #72, task #16584 (group administration):
> However, you shouldn't forget that every copyrightable file should have a
> license notice. Currently, NOTICE hasn't, has it?
No, currently, NOTICE has no license notice.
Here's my solution: put license notice to NOTICE and ./Example/
Follow-up Comment #66, task #16584 (group administration):
> > Sir/madam, I have a question. Should this section:
> > "Copyright (C) YEAR YOUR NAME.
> > Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document
> > under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Versi
Follow-up Comment #59, task #16584 (group administration):
I altered two README files and a NOTICE file and add this:
"
Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document
under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.3 or
any later version published by the Fre
Follow-up Comment #51, task #16584 (group administration):
> Thank you! As far as I can see, you still declare the licensing conditions
twice in the same README file, in different wordings. Am I wrong? If not,
why do you do that?
Sorry to bother you, sir/madam. In file #56563, at line 25, the
Follow-up Comment #61, task #16584 (group administration):
> I'm afraid you don't really understand what you've done. Please study FDL
HowTo and the additional page on its optional features. Let me know if you
have any questions.
Okay, sir/madam. Give me some time please and I will rearrange a
Follow-up Comment #58, task #16584 (group administration):
> Then I think now you should understand how to comply with Savannah hosting
requirements for documentation licenses; you should know at least two ways.
Do you?
1st, use the GFDL license.
2nd, use Creative Commons’s CC0.
I will adjust
Follow-up Comment #56, task #16584 (group administration):
> > > Is it used as a part of program of as a part of a note about the
package?
> > The svlogo.png is not used as a part of program, but it can be a part of
note
> > of StoneValley package.
> Then it's part of documentation.
Okay, then
Follow-up Comment #52, task #16584 (group administration):
comment #50:
> As far as I can see, you still declare the licensing conditions twice in the
same README file, in different wordings. Am I wrong? If not, why do you do
that?
Sir/madam, I considered that the line 5-14 is for README file
Follow-up Comment #64, task #16584 (group administration):
> Now, let us read your README. It says that a copy of the license is
included in the section entitled "GNU Fre Documentation License". Now, where
is that section?
> Then, the licensing conditions of your package is an important inform
Follow-up Comment #22, task #16584 (group administration):
> Do you think including a copy of the LGPL is a requirement as well?
I think including a copy of the LGPL is a requirement when the copyright
holder choose LGPL as license to publish his/her project. Otherwise, the
copyright holder may
Follow-up Comment #20, task #16584 (group administration):
> > I may convey an unmodified package under section 4 of GPL license. That
is, I
> > may convey verbatim copies of the Program's source code as I receive it,
in
> > any medium, provided that I conspicuously and appropriately publish on
e
Follow-up Comment #24, task #16584 (group administration):
> I don't understand the part starting with 'Otherwise'. We are
> discussing what the redistributors are required to do; the copyright
> holders may do anything with their works, as I've pointed out.
I am sorry I made confusions to you.
Follow-up Comment #25, task #16584 (group administration):
My apologize to ignore a vital point of HowTo file, that is:
"Please note that, since the LGPL is a set of additional permissions on top of
the GPL, it's crucial to include both licenses so users have all the materials
they need to underst
Follow-up Comment #27, task #16584 (group administration):
> If the redistributors have other options, this isn't really a requirement.
> Can you quote the parts of the licenses where this is discussed?
Yes I can quote, and here it is, in the GPLv3 license.
"An interactive user interface displ
Follow-up Comment #29, task #16584 (group administration):
> Let us recall the question: it was if including a copy of the LGPL
> is a requirement. How does this passage relates to that?
This paragraph notices users "and how to view a copy of this License". It
tells users to include a copy or a
Follow-up Comment #18, task #16584 (group administration):
I think the LGPL license doesn't explicitly explain the requirements for
redistributing the unmodified package.
There for I copied the requirements of GPL to convey the requirements for
redistributing the unmodified package.
___
Follow-up Comment #17, task #16584 (group administration):
> Is your tarball source code or object code, and why? What other forms
of software exist?
My tarball is source code, for the reason that others may revise my code and
convey modified versions of StoneValley project. In GPL, the “source
Follow-up Comment #15, task #16584 (group administration):
[comment #14 comment #14:]
> > I've carefully read the LGPLv3 again.
>
> In other words, carefully reading doesn't help understand the license. Let
us try analyzing.
>
> * Does your tarball qualify as the Corresponding Source for your
Follow-up Comment #31, task #16584 (group administration):
> > > What license this paragraph refers to?
> > This paragraph refers to the GPL license. Since LGPL is an additional text
to
> > the GPL license, the LGPL license doesn't really link to any topic of
> > including a copy of LGPL.
> I'm
Follow-up Comment #54, task #16584 (group administration):
> First, line 5 says, "StoneValley is free software"; in other words, it
speaks for the whole package; second, when I say that licensing conditions
should be declared in a consistent way, I mean that the wording should be
exactly the same
Follow-up Comment #74, task #16584 (group administration):
> I think it resolves the issue for ./README, but for the other two files, we
> return to the question I asked in comment #67.
How about we add a sentence: "Please refer to ./README file section xi for
thee GFDL license?", below the lice
Follow-up Comment #77, task #16584 (group administration):
> Practically, it means that if somebody, for example, wants to print those
> documents with missing sections, then they either have to print them at once
> with ./README or edit them to include the GFDL.
> By the way, why didn't you wan
Follow-up Comment #75, task #16584 (group administration):
>> I think it resolves the issue for ./README, but for the other two files, we
>> return to the question I asked in comment #67.
> How about we add a sentence: "Please refer to ./README file section xi for
> thee GFDL license?", below th
Follow-up Comment #79, task #16584 (group administration):
> I'd like to also assume that you value your users' freedom and convenience as
> well, don't you?
I advocate GNU and FSF's value. I do respect users' freedom and convenience.
> Now, if you use the GFDL, you should assume that your user
Follow-up Comment #80, task #16584 (group administration):
I refined this library, and fixed some spelling error.
Please check the newest tarball.
If you have any problems with this edition of tarball, please let me know.
(file #56664)
___
Follow-up Comment #82, task #16584 (group administration):
> Thank you! Can you tell where the copyright and license notices for
> svlogo.png are?
As we discussed before, svlogo.png should belong to documents, shall I add a
copyright notice and GFDL license to ./README to declare svlogo.png's
c
Follow-up Comment #84, task #16584 (group administration):
> Please repeat and explain what each of these two terms means.
If I am not making any mistakes,
This is copyright notice:
svlogo.png Copyright (C) 2017-2024 John Cage.
And this is license notice:
Permission is granted to c
47 matches
Mail list logo
