RE: ForgePlucker

[Nicodemo Alvaro-2]

Hi,

I am trying to evaluate ESR's application on savannah.

On the issue of the modified BSD short license notices, he is claiming
that it is not necessary to include the license as a notice in the
source code because of the nature of the license. How am I supposed to
respond to this, other than saying that referring to the 'New BSD'
license is not clear. If the directions of the license state that the
license must be included, where exactly is the problem?

--
Nicodemo

[Karl Berry]

    source code because of the nature of the license.  How am I supposed
    to respond to this

It's not about the "nature of the license".  It's a requirement of
copyright law that each copyrightable entity -- each source file, in our
case -- state its license.  And the default is "no permissions are
granted", so without a license nothing can be done.  (In theory.)

    referring to the 'New BSD' license is not clear.

Extremely unclear.  Is there a url?

    If the directions of the license state that the
    license must be included, where exactly is the problem?

Indeed.

[Nicodemo Alvaro-2]

On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 13:05:41 -0500
karl@... (Karl Berry) wrote:

>     source code because of the nature of the license.  How am I supposed
>     to respond to this
>
> It's not about the "nature of the license".  It's a requirement of
> copyright law that each copyrightable entity -- each source file, in our
> case -- state its license.  And the default is "no permissions are
> granted", so without a license nothing can be done.  (In theory.)
>
>     referring to the 'New BSD' license is not clear.
>
> Extremely unclear.  Is there a url?

No, he includes the license in a COPYING file.

--
Nicodemo

[Sylvain Beucler-2]

On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 01:05:41PM -0500, Karl Berry wrote:

>     source code because of the nature of the license.  How am I supposed
>     to respond to this
>
> It's not about the "nature of the license".  It's a requirement of
> copyright law that each copyrightable entity -- each source file, in our
> case -- state its license.  And the default is "no permissions are
> granted", so without a license nothing can be done.  (In theory.)
>
>     referring to the 'New BSD' license is not clear.
>
> Extremely unclear.  Is there a url?

Here is it - btw he customized the license to use the name of the
project and his name, so the license is unique.

-----
#!/usr/bin/env python

"""
bugplucker.py -- extract bugtracker state from hosting sites.

usage: bugplucker.py [-h] [-u user] [-p password] hostingsite project

State is dumped to standard output in JSON.

This code is Copright (c) 2009 by Eric S. Raymond.  New BSD luicense applies
"""

import sys, os, re, urllib, urllib2, time, calendar
[...]
-----

--
Sylvain

[Karl Berry]

    No, he includes the license in a COPYING file.

Well, that ameliorates the situation somewhat, although if he doesn't
unambiguously refer to that COPYING file, it's still pretty vague.

But if the requirement is a 100% valid copyright notice complying with
all the rules in precise detail, then clearly he does not meet that
standard.

I don't know where to go from here.  Sorry.

[Karl Berry]

    Here is it - btw he customized the license to use the name of the
    project and his name, so the license is unique.

So then it isn't the "New BSD" license (whatever that is) anyway.

    This code is Copright (c) 2009 by Eric S. Raymond.  New BSD luicense applies

"Copyright" is misspelled.
"license" is misspelled.

[Mario Xerxes Castelán Castro]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

October 23th 2009 for savannah-hackers-public@...

By the way forgeplucker-plain.txt says: "ForgePlucker will be a
project aimed at breaking open-source projects [...]" and AFIK GNU
project and therefore GNU Savannah do not promote open source software
but free software, is in the "How to get your project approved
quickly" too: "Refer to the "GNU/Linux operating system" instead of
"Linux", which is the kernel. Advertise the free software movement,
which we support, and not open source, which we don't. Do not use
"Open" in your project name."
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAkriGgIACgkQZ4DA0TLic4jSWACfVLk6pjYmEyfZotI9su3iAZ7+
vvUAn01uvsM/3RMglzbfvcmFYXY8jzfw
=gy9V
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

(Note than i send this message only to Karl the fist time because of
mistrake, excuse me)