[Savannah-register-public] [task #14640] Submission of Generic GPM

[Peter Cherepanov]

URL:
  

 Summary: Submission of Generic GPM
 Project: Savannah Administration
Submitted by: petercher
Submitted on: Sun 24 Sep 2017 10:36:26 PM EDT
 Should Start On: Sun 24 Sep 2017 12:00:00 AM EDT
   Should be Finished on: Wed 04 Oct 2017 12:00:00 AM EDT
Category: Project Approval
Priority: 5 - Normal
  Status: None
 Privacy: Public
Percent Complete: 0%
 Assigned to: None
 Open/Closed: Open
 Discussion Lock: Any
  Effort: 0.00

___

Details:

A new project has been registered at Savannah 
This project account will remain inactive until a site admin approves
or discards the registration.


= Registration Administration =

While this item will be useful to track the registration process,
*approving or discarding the registration must be done using the specific
Group Administration
 page*,
accessible only to site administrators,
effectively *logged as site administrators* (superuser):

* Group Administration



= Registration Details =

* Name: *Generic GPM*
* System Name:  *ggpm*
* Type: non-GNU software and documentation
* License: GNU General Public License v2 or later



 Description: 
GPM implementation in C.

GPM is a general purpose macro processor described in
http://comjnl.oxfordjournals.org/content/8/3/225.full.pdf This is a port of
CPL source code given in the article to C with some minor extensions.



 Other Software Required: 
None


 Other Comments: 
The project was hosted on Google Code but it needs new home now.


 Tarball URL: 
https://savannah.nongnu.org/submissions_uploads/ggpm.tar.gz






___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Message sent via/by Savannah
  http://savannah.nongnu.org/

[Savannah-register-public] [task #14636] Submission of Distributed Privacy Guard

[Heiko Stamer]

URL:
  

 Summary: Submission of Distributed Privacy Guard
 Project: Savannah Administration
Submitted by: stamer
Submitted on: Sun 24 Sep 2017 02:45:44 PM CEST
 Should Start On: Sun 24 Sep 2017 12:00:00 AM CEST
   Should be Finished on: Wed 04 Oct 2017 12:00:00 AM CEST
Category: Project Approval
Priority: 5 - Normal
  Status: None
 Privacy: Public
Percent Complete: 0%
 Assigned to: None
 Open/Closed: Open
 Discussion Lock: Any
  Effort: 0.00

___

Details:

A new project has been registered at Savannah 
This project account will remain inactive until a site admin approves
or discards the registration.


= Registration Administration =

While this item will be useful to track the registration process,
*approving or discarding the registration must be done using the specific
Group Administration
 page*,
accessible only to site administrators,
effectively *logged as site administrators* (superuser):

* Group Administration



= Registration Details =

* Name: *Distributed Privacy Guard*
* System Name:  *dkgpg*
* Type: non-GNU software and documentation
* License: GNU General Public License v2 or later



 Description: 
The Distributed Privacy Guard (dkgpg) implements distributed key generation
and threshold cryptography for ElGamal and DSA in a OpenPGP-compatible (RFC
4880) way, i.e., encryption and signature verification can be done with other
OpenPGP sofware. The secret keys are shared/distributed among different
devices resp. parties which improves e.g. side-channel attack resistance.

Currently the sources of the corresponding programs are included in LibTMCG
(https://savannah.nongnu.org/projects/libtmcg), however, the main focus of
this library is on a different topic (secure distributed card games) and thus
I would like to create a distinct project.


 Other Software Required: 
LibTMCG, GNU GPLv2, https://savannah.nongnu.org/projects/libtmcg
Libgcrypt, GNU LGPLv2.1, https://gnupg.org/software/libgcrypt/index.html
GNU Multiple Precision Arithmetic Library, GNU GPLv2, https://gmplib.org/
GNUnet, GNU GPL, https://gnunet.org/


 Other Comments: 
You can find the sources here:
http://git.savannah.nongnu.org/cgit/libtmcg.git/tree/tools

A short documentation with references to scientific papers is here: 
http://www.nongnu.org/libtmcg/libTMCG.html/Tools.html#Distributed-Key-Generation-and-Threshold-Cryptography


 Tarball URL: 
http://git.savannah.nongnu.org/cgit/libtmcg.git/tree/tools






___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Message sent via/by Savannah
  http://savannah.nongnu.org/

[Savannah-register-public] [task #14635] Submission of Archiver

[Ineiev]

Follow-up Comment #1, task #14635 (project administration):

Thank you for submitting your package!

Your application says your program is under GPL2+, but the files say GPLv3+.
I'm updating your application to say GPLv3+.

Comments in doc/archiver.texi are confusing:


@c Build file
@c
@c Copyright (C) 2017  Charlie Sale

@c This program is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify
@c it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
@c the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or
@c (at your option) any later version.

@c This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
@c but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
@c MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  See the
@c GNU General Public License for more details.

@c You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
@c along with this program.  If not, see .


That file is under the FDL, isn't it?

I'm approving your package.

Happy hacking!

___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Message sent via/by Savannah
  http://savannah.gnu.org/

[Savannah-register-public] [task #14635] Submission of Archiver

[Ineiev]

Update of task #14635 (project administration):

  Status:None => Done   
 Assigned to:None => ineiev 
 Open/Closed:Open => Closed 


___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Message sent via/by Savannah
  http://savannah.gnu.org/

[Savannah-register-public] [task #14621] Submission of Graph Model Library

[Ineiev]

Follow-up Comment #9, task #14621 (project administration):

> > Yes, but in most countries copyright law complies with the Berne
> > Convention, and it says that the authors shall enjoy economic
> > rights unless they transfer their rights to someone else.
> 
> It is true that the Berne Convention has 172 parties, and that that group
> likely includes all relevant jurisdictions for practical purposes. However,
it
> is not at all the case that the Berne Conventions protects “economic
> rights”.

No, it has provisions for both economic and moral rights, if you mean that.

> Neither does US or German copyright law; I doubt any copyright law
> does. Specifically, the Berne Convention protects the following rights:
> translation, making adaptations and arrangements, public performance,
> recitation, broadcast, or other communication, reproduction, and use as
basis
> for audiovisual work.

These are economic rights.

> The US law protects rights expressed slightly
> differently: reproduction, preparation of derivative works, distribution of
> copies, public performance, public display, and digital transmission.

These are economic rights, too.

> The
> details of how the requirements of the Berne Convention are met, i.e., the
> laws in place that actually protect these rights, can and do differ among
> jurisdictions.  For example, in the US one can transfer copyright
ownership,
> whereas in Germany that is not possible to do.

This would be relevant if Germany didn't provide any means
to effectively transfer economic rigths; however, it does.

> Who is able to seek remedies
> and what remedies are possible depend on the details of local law.

In the context of our discussion, it's relevant that the authors (until
they transfer certain parts of their rights) are able to seek remedies.
The Berne Convention requires this, therefore it should be the case
both in the US and in Germany as well as in Kyrgyzstan.

> Even
> worse, the identification of which local law prevails is not even clear for
> works (such as software under development worldwide) that are published
widely
> and simultaneously.

I guess the courts are going to use their local law---in all cases compliant
with the Berne Convention.

> One relevant consequence of this is that in US courts
> contributors to software only have standing for their own contribution in
the
> absence of some procedure that clearly establishes the right for some
person
> or entity to act on their behalf.

Do you mean they are denied the right to hire a lawyer?  This seems
extremely surprising.  I believe it would violate the UDHR.
Could you support this with some references?

> > > Nothing in the policy I have identified conflicts with anyone's
> > > ability to maintain the free status of a GPLed program (or library in
> > > this case). After all, it is released under the GPL and thus by design
> > > cannot be made "unfree".
> > 
> > If "Us" decide to release a proprietary version of the library,
> > the library in that version will be nonfree. The only people
> > who could prevent this are contributors---but if they sign that
> > agreement, they can’t.
> 
> This is fundamentally irrelevant to whether this is free software.  Yes,
all
> sorts of hypothetical things can occur in the future.  However, none of
those
> activities have any bearing on the rights of people wishing to use released
> code, contributions to that released code, derivative works, or anything
else.

Yes, I think the activity of "Us" releasing a proprietary version
of the library in binary-only form has some bearing on the rights
of people wishing to use derivative works, in particular,
that proprietary version of the library.  Why doesn't it?

___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Message sent via/by Savannah
  http://savannah.gnu.org/