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, which isn't very nice. What cases will apply to your > users if they decide to redistribute what you give them as is? Thank you sir/madam, you don't need to do the work before users may redistribute it. Users are allowed redistribute it as the conditions which is written in LGPL. > Could you please check the GPL HowTo once again? > https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-howto.html Now I got it, I need to add both LGPL and GPL license to my project, because in the above file, there are: *) Add a COPYING file with a copy of the GNU GPL or GNU AGPL. *) Also add a COPYING.LESSER file with a copy of the GNU LGPL, if you use that. *) Put a license notice in each file. > I see; we agreed that such approach was wrong by comment #35; however, > you didn't think that the tarball needed updating, did you? I am sorry, no, I did't update the tarball. I would update it again in this comment. > Now, let us come to the license notice. First, please repeat what > it should look like in case of releasing a package under the LGPL 'version 3 or later'. Here is the license notice, I copied and altered it from this file(https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-howto.html): This file is part of StoneValley. StoneValley is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU Lesser General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. StoneValley is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU Lesser General Public License for more details. You should have received a copy of the GNU Lesser General Public License along with StoneValley. If not, see <https://www.gnu.org/licenses/>. > Please make sure that all your files contain the exact form of the > notice recommended by the GNU Project. They are carefully written > by lawyers to avoid possible misinterpretations, > and that's very important. Neither of us is a native English > speaker, so we shouldn't describe the terms of use in our own words. > When one specifies the licensing conditions carelessly, they often > turn out incompatible with Savannah hosting requirements. Okay, I got it. > Then, please note that Savannah hosting requirements include > releasing documentation in GFDL-compatible way. Can you see what > that means? Yes, that means all the releasing documents should be GNU Free Documentation License compatible. (file #56551) _______________________________________________________ Additional Item Attachment: File name: StoneValley.tar Size: 870KiB <https://file.savannah.nongnu.org/file/StoneValley.tar?file_id=56551> AGPL NOTICE These attachments are served by Savane. You can download the corresponding source code of Savane at https://git.savannah.nongnu.org/cgit/administration/savane.git/snapshot/savane-a0d195b6c3392c5f36ab8952df55e848831b569e.tar.gz _______________________________________________________ Reply to this item at: <https://savannah.nongnu.org/task/?16584> _______________________________________________ Message sent via Savannah https://savannah.nongnu.org/
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
