diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'subprojects/freeamo/src/unmaintained/sync-data/Text_templates/issue_intro.txt~')
| -rw-r--r-- | subprojects/freeamo/src/unmaintained/sync-data/Text_templates/issue_intro.txt~ | 99 |
1 files changed, 99 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/subprojects/freeamo/src/unmaintained/sync-data/Text_templates/issue_intro.txt~ b/subprojects/freeamo/src/unmaintained/sync-data/Text_templates/issue_intro.txt~ new file mode 100644 index 0000000..123d39e --- /dev/null +++ b/subprojects/freeamo/src/unmaintained/sync-data/Text_templates/issue_intro.txt~ @@ -0,0 +1,99 @@ +I'm working as a volunteer for the Free Software Directory. Your program +is free software so in principle it should be listed there, and I'd like to +add it. But it has some problems in showing what its license is. +Would you please fix them, for the sake of users and other developers? + +Once your version with fixed license issues is public available on addons.mozilla.org_ENTRY we will review it, and if it meet our requirement I will approve http://directory.fsf.org/wiki/FSD_FULL_SOFTWARE_NAME. Once approved it will be listed on the official GNU IceCat add-on list at https://directory.fsf.org/wiki/IceCat. GNU IceCat is the GNU variant of Firefox. + +See https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/librejs/ if you want to study a well licensed add-on. + +# Issues + +## License not displayed +addons.mozilla.org_ENTRY do not list "Released under". + +## No full copy of the license file included + +There are no full copy of the license file + +The root directory don't have a COPYING file with a copy of the software license. A plain text version of LICENSE LICENSE_VERSION +can be found here: LICENSE_LINK + +## Lack of full license headers in each file + +There are no (full) license notices in the non-trivial source files + +The source files in FULL_SOFTWARE_NAME don't have notices saying you are the copyright +holder and/or that they are released under LICENSE LICENSE_VERSION. +I'm writing to ask you to please put a notice on each nontrivial source file. + +Selecting a license on a website that hosts the add-on (like addons.mozilla.org), will only show it there, the source files won't be modified. + +First, here's why license notices are needed. + +The purpose of a license notice is to state formally that a certain +file may be used under the terms of a particular license. + +The LICENSE, like most free software licenses, applies to whatever +material is released under that license. It does not say anything +about which programs are released that way. + +Therefore, simply including a copy of the LICENSE with some code +does not release the code under the terms of the LICENSE. +To do that, you need a license notice, which says, more or less, +"We the copyright holders release this code under the LICENSE." + +The source files should be accompanied by a copyright notice, which says who +"we" copyright holders are. That takes the form "Copyright YEAR NAME". + +For the LICENSE, there are two other reasons for a license notice: to say +which version of the LICENSE applies, and (for LICENSE LICENSE_VERSION), to say whether the +LICENSE's option of GPL compatibility applies. It is enabled by default +in LICENSE LICENSE_VERSION, but users should have an explicit statement of where things +stand for any particular code. The license notice is where you +specify this. + +Why should the license notice be on _each_ source file? +Because doing it at the package level is error-prone. + +In the free software community, it is not unusual to copy a file from +a free program into some other context. If the source file doesn't +have its own license notice, then its licensing comes from the +original context. In the other context, its licensing may not be +clear. It may not be stated at all, or it could be stated wrong. For +instance, what if the other program says, "This program is released +under Apache 2.0", or "This program is released under GNU GPL, version +3 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation." + +The result would be to misinform users about the file's licensing. + +People sometimes copy part of a file, too. If the file has a license +notice, people know to preserve that notice when copying part of the +file's code. Otherwise, the licensing will probably get lost. + +A different problem can happen if you copy code _into_ FULL_SOFTWARE_NAME from +some other package. Your package-level license notice would say it is +under LICENSE LICENSE_VERSION, but what if it actually carries some other license, +such as Apache 2.0, or GPL Version 3 or later? + +Keeping a license notice in each file is the way to reliably show +users what their rights are. Please don't let uncertainty creep in. + +You've made a decision about the license -- would you please announce +it in a way that won't get forgotten? + +Other people can use your work with bad intentions, even if the mistake were honestly +unintentional. That is why, unfortunately, we have to take lots of time with verifying +the legality of everything. + +See https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-howto.en.html for how to apply license notices. + + +# Licenseutils +* sudo apt-get install licenseutils +* Licenseutils [0.0.8 can edit .js](https://savannah.nongnu.org/bugs/index.php?49441#comment24) files (see [patch](http://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/licenseutils.git/commit/?id=0d365160cc0fb6d0ed5eb26cf6e762278867e653)). If you use a earlier version you need to temporary rename your .js files to .cpp (Javascript comments are the same as c++) until JS have been implemented (see [fix](https://savannah.nongnu.org/bugs/?49441)) and then rename them back to .js. +* Run this but with your name/copyright year/license: licensing notice -c 'Yoyodyne,\ Inc.\ 2001' -l gpl -s c -n *.cpp + +# References +These issues are compatible with the policy listed in [Free Software Directory, Requirements](https://directory.fsf.org/wiki?title=Free_Software_Directory:Requirements). + |