Follow-up Comment #5, task #16756 (group administration): [comment #4 comment #4:] > 2nd attempt correction done. I added the missing gawk package as part of a > hard dependency for this software. Now, I'm going to reply all the important > subject that you've brought up. >> Do you think a name like 'vocab-trainer' would be appropriate? > Are you referring to "System Name"?
Yes, I am. > I would prefer "jvocab-trainer-01a" as that would be less vague than > "vocab-trainer". The naming after "dash" is for version naming. It is > something that I prefer adopting as versioning pattern without having any "." > in the version naming (eg. foo-01a foo-02a foo-v1 foo-v1-1 foo-v1-2 > foo-v1-1-23). System names don't include version number, it's a part of release tarballs. What about 'jvocab-trainer'? >> Probably it wouldn't be hard to pre-filter the data file like: > Is this really a hard requirement? Legal notices should be easy to find, and the conventional place for them is the start of the file. > because I don't want to add more code and do more code restructuring just to > compensate the line placement of copyright gpl notice in the data file. Then you can consider adding more code to support arbitrary comments in your data files. It's a very useful feature. > The data file is in .txt form and it is not a programming source code where > user would concern about gpl notice. I don't think I really understand this. Text data files are copyrightable as well as program source code. > In fact in the README file, I've added a notice where to look for gpl > copyright notice in the data file. README file should only be used as a fallback when the data format has no place for comments because the info from the README file will be lost if the data file is copied without README; and generally, it's much more convenient when the user only needs to copy a file without editing any supplementary texts. > Noted. In the case of ncurses package, what I discover that the software uses > the X11 license. The X11 license is also known as the MIT/X Consortium > license. Therefore, it is one of the licenses that has been historically > called "the MIT License", but it is not the same as the Expat license because > it includes a clause regarding the use of the X Consortium's name for > publicity. You can read more about ncurses license in the description below > or in the README file where the bash's packages related dependencies are > listed. Thanks. > By the way, all of these packages mention here as dependencies can be found > in Parabola Linux repository. As you may already know, the organization of > GNU.org itself endorses the use of Parabola GNU/Linux as a recommended > distribution due to its strict adherence to the Free Software Foundation's > (FSF) guidelines https://www.gnu.org/home.en.html?distro=parabola. That being > said, I can ensure you that all of these dependency software packages listed > in here are safe from non-free software. Good point. Another Savannah hosting requirement is the compatibility with GPLv3 and any later version; this requirement is harder---for example, the original OpenSSL license is free but GPL-incompatible. What do you think? ... > YAD (https://yad-guide.ingk.se/YAD_Guide.html), > (https://github.com/v1cont/yad) > gawk (https://www.gnu.org/software/gawk/) What are their licenses? > Dependencies packages of bash, gawk and YAD relate to: > > // YAD // > 1."gtk3" (LGPL-2.1-or-later) < https://www.gtk.org/ > > 2."webkit2gtk" (*) < https://webkitgtk.org > > 3."gtkspell3" (GPL-2.0-or-later) < http://gtkspell.sourceforge.net/ > > > * The `webkit2gtk` package incorporates code from multiple sources, resulting > in a combination of licenses that govern different components of the > software. These licenses include the "Academic Free License v2.0 (AFL-2.0)" > or "GPL-2.0-or-later; Apache License 2.0", sometimes with an "LLVM > exception"; various "BSD licenses" (2-Clause, 2-Clause-Views, 3-Clause, and > Source-Code); "Boost Software License 1.0 (BSL-1.0)"; the "bzip2 license"; > "GPL-2.0-only"; "GPL-3.0-only" with an "Autoconf exception"; > "GPL-3.0-or-later" with a "Bison exception"; the "ICU license"; "ISC > license"; "LGPL-2.1-only" and "LGPL-2.1-or-later"; "MIT license; Mozilla > Public License 1.1 (MPL-1.1)" and "2.0 (MPL-2.0)"; the "NCSA license", > sometimes dual-licensed with "MIT"; "Open Font License 1.1 (OFL-1.1)"; > "SunPro license"; and "Unicode Terms of Use (Unicode-TOU)". Each license > applies to specific portions of the codebase, reflecting its origin and usage > rights. I don't think I understand this; e.g. what "the 'NCSA license', sometimes dual-licensed with 'MIT'" may mean---when is 'sometimes'? Some names are unknown to me, like '2-Clause-Views'; other licenses are mutually incompatible. How do you explain this? > // bash // > 2."glibc" (GPL-2.0-or-later LGPL-2.1-or-later) < https://www.gnu ... > g/software/libc > I'm sorry. I'm afraid 'GPL-2.0-or-later LGPL-2.1-or-later' is too terse for me. ... > 3."ncurses" (**MIT-open-group**) < > https://invisible-island.net/ncurses/ncurses.html > > > * The "ncurses" dependency package is licensed under the "X11 License" ... > ii. [The Open Group's Licensing > Overview](https://www.opengroup.org/licensing-requirements). Thank you! As far as I understand, Bash can be built without curses, though. > // gawk // ... > 3. "bash" (GPL-3.0-or-later) < > https://tiswww.case.edu/php/chet/bash/bashtop.html>, < > https://www.gnu.org/software/bash/bash.html > Does Gawk really depend on Bash? I would rather think of Bison instead. _______________________________________________________ Reply to this item at: <https://savannah.nongnu.org/task/?16756> _______________________________________________ Message sent via Savannah https://savannah.nongnu.org/
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
