"or any later" clause mandatory?

[Sebastian Gerhardt]

Hi,

some days ago an applicant complained about being asked to relicense
with the "or any later" clause added to the GPL, while he didn't find
this requirement on Savannah's website.

I've always had the impression this was mandatory. But I also couldn't
find it on the requirement checklist.

If it is mandatory, we should extend sentence two of the checklist on
https://savannah.gnu.org/register/ to reflect this so that it doesn't
look so arbitrary when we point it out during review process.


Regards,
Sebastian

[Nicodemo Alvaro-2]

On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 20:05:50 +0100
Sebastian Gerhardt <sebgerhardt@...> wrote:

> On Wed, 2009-10-28 at 14:43 -0400, Nicodemo Alvaro wrote:
>
> > I think it's fairly difficult, but I am not sure it is correct to say
> > it's not there.
>
> Ok, it's there.
> But I was even looking for it and still missed it. :)
>
>
> > How about we add another line for the GNU GPL like the FDL line to the
> > register/requirements.php
> >
> > All software must be under the "GNU GPL X or (at your option) any later
> > version" or another compatible license with the GNU GPL.
> >
> > We should also link to the list of licenses compatible.
> >
> > How does that sound?
>
> Good.
> But I think we should still modify the line of the checkboxes
> "My license is compatible with the GNU GPL or GFDL"
>
> I would like it to say you have to stay both compatible
> to the current version as well to the versions to come, i.e. to have the
> (or any later) clause in case of GPL and GFDL.
> But I did not succeed to pack this into a short sentence. Maybe a native
> speaker knows how to do this.

I wonder if it would just be better to point to the "Free Software
Licenses" requirement page. Really, a checklist should recap on the
requirements and not seem to be another set of requirements.

So something like this:

"My license is compatible with 'Free Software Licenses' requirement"
and give a link to that anchor.

My bad for taking the thread off the mailing list.
--
Nicodemo

[Karl Berry]

    I've always had the impression this was mandatory.

Me too.  It would not be logical for GPLvN-or-later not to be a requirement.

    But I also couldn't find it on the requirement checklist.

There are several checklists and summaries and statements.
Which one(s) were you looking at?  Urls please.

I agree with Nicodemo that this is a problem in itself, and we should
consolidate/clarify.

[Karl Berry]

    I've always had the impression this was mandatory.

Me too.  It would not be logical for GPLvN-or-later not to be a requirement.

    But I also couldn't find it on the requirement checklist.

There are several checklists and summaries and statements.
Which one(s) were you looking at?  Urls please.

I agree with Nicodemo that this is a problem in itself, and we should
consolidate/clarify.

[Sebastian Gerhardt]

On Wed, 2009-10-28 at 16:40 -0500, Karl Berry wrote:

>     But I also couldn't find it on the requirement checklist.
>
> There are several checklists and summaries and statements.
> Which one(s) were you looking at?  Urls please.

I was talking about the checklist on:
https://savannah.gnu.org/register/
which is the requirements page I think most applicants see first
and then lead to:
https://savannah.gnu.org/register/requirements.php

[Karl Berry]

    I was talking about the checklist on:
    https://savannah.gnu.org/register/
    which is the requirements page I think most applicants see first

I agree.

    and then lead to:
    https://savannah.gnu.org/register/requirements.php

Right.

It also leads to
http://savannah.gnu.org/maintenance/HowToGetYourProjectApprovedQuickly.
which although is explicitly not the hosting policy, is more detailed
and useful than the actual policy for submitters, it seems to me.  I've
never been sure what to do about this discrepancy, but it's always
seemed troublesome to me.  Sigh.  Separate issue, I know.

Anyway, I don't see anything about distros on either of those pages, and
doing some searches didn't turn it up either.

Searching the mailing list archives, I found some responses.  See for
example http://savannah.gnu.org/task/?7043, which says:

    As mentioned in the registration pages, we do not host complete
    distros, distros isos, packages repositories, etc, for space and
    bandwidth reasons. We may just offer support for organisational
    purpose and dedicated software (such as iso creation scripts).

(This same text is in replies to several old requests.)  But I could not
the right "registration pages".  

Also, if it's about space and bandwidth, then supporting partial distro
uploads (of certain packages, as mentioned in this latest request) seems
like it would be allowed.  Hmm.

k

[Sebastian Gerhardt]

On Sat, 2009-10-31 at 18:29 -0500, Karl Berry wrote:

> It also leads to
> http://savannah.gnu.org/maintenance/HowToGetYourProjectApprovedQuickly.
> which although is explicitly not the hosting policy, is more detailed
> and useful than the actual policy for submitters, it seems to me.  I've
> never been sure what to do about this discrepancy, but it's always
> seemed troublesome to me.  Sigh.  Separate issue, I know.

Who was it who introduced and wrote the Savannah requirements? I'd like
to ask this person to resolve that discrepancy.

> Anyway, I don't see anything about distros on either of those pages, and
> doing some searches didn't turn it up either.
>
> Searching the mailing list archives, I found some responses.  See for
> example http://savannah.gnu.org/task/?7043, which says:
>
>     As mentioned in the registration pages, we do not host complete
>     distros, distros isos, packages repositories, etc, for space and
>     bandwidth reasons. We may just offer support for organisational
>     purpose and dedicated software (such as iso creation scripts).
>
> (This same text is in replies to several old requests.)  But I could not
> the right "registration pages".  
>
> Also, if it's about space and bandwidth, then supporting partial distro
> uploads (of certain packages, as mentioned in this latest request) seems
> like it would be allowed.  Hmm.

It would also a hell of a job for the reviewer to check thousand of
packages for compliance, if I may add. :)

[Nicodemo Alvaro-2]

On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 09:46:23 +0100
Sebastian Gerhardt <sebgerhardt@...> wrote:

> On Sat, 2009-10-31 at 18:29 -0500, Karl Berry wrote:
>
> > It also leads to
> > http://savannah.gnu.org/maintenance/HowToGetYourProjectApprovedQuickly.
> > which although is explicitly not the hosting policy, is more detailed
> > and useful than the actual policy for submitters, it seems to me.  I've
> > never been sure what to do about this discrepancy, but it's always
> > seemed troublesome to me.  Sigh.  Separate issue, I know.
>
> Who was it who introduced and wrote the Savannah requirements? I'd like
> to ask this person to resolve that discrepancy.

I think we need to realize that everyone who does anything for savannah
is a volunteer. We can't expect volunteers to come back to improve
things that they did. What we can do is improve it ourselves. I think
that document has not been modified, because we need a complete working
proposal to be made. We could try to consolidate the requirements by
pulling all the resources into a single outline on the wiki and use that
as our proposal.

It seems to me that a lot of work has been done by volunteers in the
wiki, it's just a little disorganized for what we want.

Check http://sv.gnu.org/maintenance/ProjectApproval and its subtopics.

I think there should be a resources section that explains where people
can go to get advice on how to comply. We can not expand too much on
the requirements page. For example, I think a clear copyright and
license notice example would help clarify what we are asking with "or
any later."

--
Nicodemo

[Karl Berry]

    pulling all the resources into a single outline on the wiki

Sure, although that will take a lot of effort.

    Check http://sv.gnu.org/maintenance/ProjectApproval and its subtopics.

Which doesn't even mention
http://savannah.gnu.org/maintenance/HowToGetYourProjectApprovedQuickly,
which is the single most useful page for submitters, as far as I can
see.

    I think there should be a resources section that explains where people
    can go to get advice on how to comply.

Adding a new section will compound the confusion rather than the
decrease it, IMHO.  What's needed is consolidation.

And I think all the advice on how to comply already exists, e.g., the
HowToGet... page, among others :(.

    the requirements page. For example, I think a clear copyright and
    license notice example would help clarify what we are asking with "or
    any later."

Those examples exist on the canonical license pages, most importantly
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-howto.html.  We should point to that
rather than duplicate it, IMHO.

[Nicodemo Alvaro-2]

On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 17:39:43 -0600
karl@... (Karl Berry) wrote:

>     pulling all the resources into a single outline on the wiki
>
> Sure, although that will take a lot of effort.

I've attached a draft of what I am trying to say.

--
Nicodemo

[Nicodemo Alvaro-2]

On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 17:39:43 -0600
karl@... (Karl Berry) wrote:

>     pulling all the resources into a single outline on the wiki
>
> Sure, although that will take a lot of effort.

Speaking of complying with the requirements. I find it difficult to see
what the content is under. I've heard that all the documentation in the
Maintenance is covered under the FDL, but what about the the site
specific content from register/requirements.txt?

--
Nicodemo

[Karl Berry]

Sorry for the delayed reply.

    I've attached a draft of what I am trying to say.

Overall, I think it is good.  There are some details of wording, etc.,
that I would propose changes to before it gets published.

But before worrying about that, can we make a plan for what will happen
to all the other pages on this topic?  And what they all are.  We need
to be sure we can replace them all with links to this.  Otherwise we
will be complicating the situation instead of simplifying it.

Also, is this intended to be the official "hosting requirements", as
well as the checklist?  All-in-one?

Thanks,
k

[Sebastian Gerhardt]

On Mon, 2009-11-23 at 01:46 +0000, Karl Berry wrote:

> Also, is this intended to be the official "hosting requirements", as
> well as the checklist?  All-in-one?

I certainly hope so.
We have had some angry complains from applicants lately because of
unclear and seemingly arbitrarily requirements. A more transparent
review process due to a common checklist both for reviewer and applicant
would help a lot.

[Nicodemo Alvaro-2]

On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 09:32:12 +0100
Sebastian Gerhardt <sebgerhardt@...> wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-11-23 at 01:46 +0000, Karl Berry wrote:
>
> > But before worrying about that, can we make a plan for what will happen
> > to all the other pages on this topic?  And what they all are.  We need
> > to be sure we can replace them all with links to this.  Otherwise we
> > will be complicating the situation instead of simplifying it.

Okay, I will try to find all the links and cite where all the info that
I use comes from.

> > Also, is this intended to be the official "hosting requirements", as
> > well as the checklist?  All-in-one?
>
> I certainly hope so.
> We have had some angry complains from applicants lately because of
> unclear and seemingly arbitrarily requirements. A more transparent
> review process due to a common checklist both for reviewer and applicant
> would help a lot.

I agree with this; however, currently the checklist for the applicant
is integrated with register scripts. By making an "all-in-one" do you
mean we should make a similar form where the applicant has to check
boxes off or is it better and more efficient to have only a check box
asking whether the requirements were read? I lean for the latter.

--
Nicodemo

[Sebastian Gerhardt]

Me too.
Two checkboxes like this:
[] "I read and agree to all hosting requirements [link]".
[] "I understand my project will not be approved until all requirements
are met"
This is similar to the current last checkbox.

We can then strip most of the other checkboxes, as they are included
into your draft already.




On Mon, 2009-11-23 at 10:01 -0500, Nicodemo Alvaro wrote:
>
> I agree with this; however, currently the checklist for the applicant
> is integrated with register scripts. By making an "all-in-one" do you
> mean we should make a similar form where the applicant has to check
> boxes off or is it better and more efficient to have only a check box
> asking whether the requirements were read? I lean for the latter.

[Sylvain Beucler-2]

On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 10:01:50AM -0500, Nicodemo Alvaro wrote:

> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 09:32:12 +0100
> Sebastian Gerhardt <sebgerhardt@...> wrote:
> > On Mon, 2009-11-23 at 01:46 +0000, Karl Berry wrote:
> >
> > > But before worrying about that, can we make a plan for what will happen
> > > to all the other pages on this topic?  And what they all are.  We need
> > > to be sure we can replace them all with links to this.  Otherwise we
> > > will be complicating the situation instead of simplifying it.
>
> Okay, I will try to find all the links and cite where all the info that
> I use comes from.
>
> > > Also, is this intended to be the official "hosting requirements", as
> > > well as the checklist?  All-in-one?
> >
> > I certainly hope so.
> > We have had some angry complains from applicants lately because of
> > unclear and seemingly arbitrarily requirements. A more transparent
> > review process due to a common checklist both for reviewer and applicant
> > would help a lot.
>
> I agree with this; however, currently the checklist for the applicant
> is integrated with register scripts. By making an "all-in-one" do you
> mean we should make a similar form where the applicant has to check
> boxes off or is it better and more efficient to have only a check box
> asking whether the requirements were read? I lean for the latter.

The checkboxes are intended to be a _fast_ thing to read, which people
cannot miss. If you make a checkbox "I agree with the requirements",
pointing to a lenghty, canonical, all-corner-cases-covered, official
requirements text, then you can expect that 98% people won't read it
and will miss the essential points, a.k.a. the current checkboxes.

What exactly is missing from http://savannah.gnu.org/register/requirements.php ?
I'd start fixing this page, if need be.

Also, I don't think that stuff like "you need to test your
applications with a Free Java Suite" should be in the official
requirements. They are infered from "No dependencies on non-free
software".  Where do you see this belong?

--
Sylvain