taskSavannah Administration - Tasks: task #10686, Submission of Opus Libre

 
 

task #10686: Submission of Opus Libre

Submitter:  Valentin Villenave <v_villenave>
Submitted:  Tue 12 Oct 2010 12:11:28 AM UTC
   
 
Should Start On:  Tue 12 Oct 2010 12:00:00 AM UTC Should be Finished on:  Fri 22 Oct 2010 12:00:00 AM UTC
Category:  Project Approval Priority:  * 5 - Normal
Status:  Done Privacy:  Public
Assigned to:  marioxcc Open/Closed:  Closed
* Mandatory Fields

Add a New Comment Rich Markup
   

Jump to the original submission

Fri 15 Oct 2010 03:00:00 AM UTC, comment #8: 

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

2010-10-14 in GNU Savannah task #10686: "Submission of Opus Libre".

Hi.

I have approved this project.  You will receive an auto-generated
email containing detailed information about the approval.

Note as of commit 9ab02af200d7b25b842c6865d4e7fbaf9d75e056: A small
sentence "See the GNU General Public License for more details." is
missing.  GIT is activable from the administration page of the
project.

Regards and thanks

Item status changes:

Status -> Done
Open/Closed -> Closed
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEAREIAAYFAky3wysACgkQZ4DA0TLic4iOPgCeLddLoJWzwyHWVgA3FwO0GN8F
PywAn3cxQJ+JMeSmarBaax7H0qmLNDpU
=+aI8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Mario Castelán Castro <marioxcc>
Thu 14 Oct 2010 05:14:31 AM UTC, comment #7: 

Hi Valentin,

Also, a standard header makes our work easier. As we are all volunteers here and our time is limited, any efforts saved during project review benefit us all: submitters (less time for approval) and reviewers (more projects reviewed) alike. Sometimes we may have to make compromises towards this goal, and a standard header is quite easier to review and identify than a custom header. Even though it may make the process look a bit obnoxious -- I know because I submitted my own custom header the first time :D

Alex.

Alex Fernandez <alexfernandez>
Thu 14 Oct 2010 02:37:47 AM UTC, comment #6: 

Greetings Mario,

your efforts are much appreciated, and your answer is welcome.
Point taken; I have updated my copyright headers accordingly.

Knowing more about your work does help. I have now subscribed to savannah-hackers, and I'm looking forward to learning more about it.

Anyway, please let me know if the licensing information is now appropriate.  If so, I hope that this project can be hosted soon on Savannah (preferably on a git repository?).

Thanks for your patience.

Regards,
Valentin.

Valentin Villenave <v_villenave>
Thu 14 Oct 2010 01:06:42 AM UTC, comment #5: 

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

2010-10-13 in GNU Savannah task #10686: "Submission of Opus Libre".

Hello Valentin.

We don't aim to be a bureaucracy, we aim to educate and promote our
philosphy and good licensing practices, that's why we ask the
maintainer to make changes according to what the GNU project and the
Free Software Foundation suggest, regarding software licensing.

> whilst the GPL header I use is indeed slightly different than the
> suggested one, it does include all the information needed: copyright
> statement and license information.


In overall there are 2 important differences between the license
header you're currently using and the customary one: yours lack
warranty disclamer and license URL.  Also, yours feature a shortened
and maybe less clear wording.

> If using exactly the suggested header is in fact mandatory [...]


No, it isn't mandatory.  Who said so?.

My insistence with the suggested GPL header is because it is known to
be of trust.  The GNU GPL header as suggested by the GNU project was
reviewed by several people, we consider it to be complete as includes
all relevant information.  We could also say it passed the test of
time, the GNU GPL 1 from 1989 contains this notice in its "howto"
section and has been successfuly used in thousands of free software
projects since.

We're very prone to miss something if we made yet another header for
the GNU GPL.  For instance, the one Opus Libre is using currently
lacks important aspects, as explained above.  These custom headers may
or may not be considered valid in a court or may miss something else
legaly important (The warranty disclamer, for example).  But We don't
want to include barely what's need to state the file is under the GNU
GPL.  We should also attend to other issues:

First, unless you actually offer a unconditional warranty, you don't
want to get sued if an user find a bug in the software.  Warranty
disclamers can avoid this problem.

We also want the user to know his rights even if he got the file in
question but didn't got a copy of the GPL (Although as the notice
itself states, a copy of the GNU GPL should be distributed along with
the work, but the vendor may forget, the copy may get lost, etc...).
If the license notice tells where a online copy can be found the user
can check the URL if he have internet access.

These are some of the possible issues with a custom license.  I hope
now you understand why the suggested header is used, and why we ask
you to use it.  If you still find this request to be a problem please
explain it comprehensively so we can get faster to a satisfactory
solution.

> As explicitely specified in each and every one of them, files that
> lack a GPL header are deprecated and to be removed


Fine, but please don't blame on me :).  The comment was "This file is
deprecated and must be adapted to the framework".  This don't tells me
they were to be removed.  The fact these files were included in the
tarball made me thought you meant them to be uploaded to GNU Savannah
and hence would be subject of evaluation, then I found the Copyright &
licensing information was missing.  In this case, these files were
removed, so it is no longer a problem.

What about ".directory" files and those under "share"?.  If you want
to upload these to GNU Savannah please state their Copyright &
licensing information.

> COPYING and README document are present in the tarball.


It's fine.  I didn't claim the contrary.

> I am not amused when the use of predefined answers tends to take an
> unnecessarily offensive turn.


There are no predefined answers.  There are prewritten chunks of text
which deals with the most common issues but these are manually
included and tuned for each message as we consider appropriate.

In my specific case, the collection/database I use for these
prewritten texts is a modified version of savannah.el as publicly
downloadable.  The download instructions are available in
http://savannah.gnu.org/maintenance/SavannahElVim.

Project reviewing is an exhausting task, I would want it to exist a
universally valid predefined answer ;).  But it's not that easy.

If you would like to help us in this task please see
http://savannah.gnu.org/maintenance/HowToBecomeASavannahHacker.

I don't understand why you did chose to interpret that as "offensive"
but by no means I did meant it to be an offense.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

At your option we can continue the registration process in the (D)VCS
repository of your choise inside GNU Savannah.  This means I would
approve the project just now provided you agree to fix any remaining
or further issue (If any) as soon as possible.

I will close this task when I can check all is ok but please bear in
mind you must follow the hosting requirements as long as you do use
GNU Savannah, regardless of the way you chose to continue the
registration process.

Regards and thanks.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEAREIAAYFAky2VxEACgkQZ4DA0TLic4gnVACfUzbptL7rZyA6P0OEbgN/WsKj
kXsAn1DajY2BrknQDe41G1TF6H+kCF/2
=tdtL
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Mario Castelán Castro <marioxcc>
Wed 13 Oct 2010 09:15:41 AM UTC, comment #4: 

Greetings,

I will happily do that. Until then, I just have a few minor comments:

- whilst the GPL header I use is indeed slightly different than the suggested one, it does include all the information needed: copyright statement and license information.
If using exactly the suggested header is in fact mandatory, then may I respectfully wonder why the GNU project would refer to it as a "suggested" header?

- As explicitely specified in each and every one of them, files that lack a GPL header are deprecated and to be removed.  In fact, I have just pushed the commit so this is no longer a problem (if ever).

- COPYING and README document are present in the tarball.  To avoid cluttering the file tree (as repeatedly explained, and as mentioned in the only top-level file's header), they are just not placed in the share/doc directory and not at top-level (which may be more common, but not mandatory).

- Whilst I perfectly understand that any project as large as Savannah is bound to have its share of bureaucracy, I am not amused when the use of predefined answers tends to take an unnecessarily offensive turn.

Yours respectfully, V.Villenave.

Valentin Villenave <v_villenave>
Tue 12 Oct 2010 09:51:21 PM UTC, comment #3: 

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

2010-10-12 in GNU Savannah task #10686: "Submission of Opus Libre".

Hello.

You filled the Savannah hosting request, if you want to offer this
software to the GNU project read
http://www.gnu.org/help/evaluation.html.  Please note these are
separate issues each with its own processes.

If this project is accepted into the GNU project you may change its
type by asking us at the savannah-hackers-public mailing list or open
a support request in this project (Administration).  Until that
happens I will set this field to non-GNU.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The GPL header isn't that suggested by the GNU project.  Other files
lack Copyright & licensing information at all.

In order to release your project properly and unambiguously under the
GNU GPL, please place copyright notices and permission-to-copy
statements at the beginning of EVERY copyrightable file, usually any
file more than 10 lines long.

In addition, if you haven't already, please include a copy of the
plain text version of the GPL, available from
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.txt, into a file named "COPYING".

For more information, see http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-howto.html.
You can also find the adviced license notice there.

If some of your files cannot carry such notices (e.g. binary files),
then you can add a README file in the same directory containing the
copyright and license notices. Check
http://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain/html_node/Copyright-Notices.html for
further information.

The GPL FAQ explains why these procedures must be followed.  To learn
why a copy of the GPL must be included with every copy of the code,
for example, see
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhyMustIInclude.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Please fix this issues and provide a updated tarball.  You can ethier
attach it to the tracker or use an external hosting and provide a
direct download URL.

Regards and thanks for your interest in free software.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEAREIAAYFAky01+oACgkQZ4DA0TLic4hrrACfXAgtJ3SofDBBh3SwX+1K5q54
N5wAn09/svyKDFSF5d2Fny6IkgzwCaWV
=Hwx+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Mario Castelán Castro <marioxcc>
Tue 12 Oct 2010 07:36:57 AM UTC, comment #2: 

Greetings,
the plan is indeed to move to Savannah as the primary platform (although repo.or.cz will probably remain as a mirror, so as not to break existing URLs I may have posted here and there).

As for the non-GNU issue, the very reason why I'm applying here is precisely because I would like for this (albeit small) framework to be accepted into the GNU project.  It only relies on pure GNU software, is mainly written using guile, and does provide GNU LilyPond users with useful functionality (although it's evidently not mandatory to use it!).

Please let me know if there are other questions I need to make myself more clear about.

Regards,
Valentin.

Valentin Villenave <v_villenave>
Tue 12 Oct 2010 01:04:39 AM UTC, comment #1: 

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

2010-10-11 in GNU Savannah task #10686: "Submission of Opus Libre".

Hi.

I'm evaluating the project you submitted for approval in GNU Savannah.
You can reach the rest Savannah hackers (Staff) in this list:
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/savannah-hackers-public.

I noticed Opus Libre is hosted at repo.or.cz.

Savannah is a central point for development, distribution and
maintenance of GNU and non-gnu Software.

However, we don't want GNU Savannah to be used just as a mirror.  Your
project development should happen primarily on Savannah.

Are you planning to move Opus Libre from repo.or.cz to GNU Savannah?.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Your project is not part of the GNU project, so we cannot accept its
current type.  We want to maintain the distinction between 'GNU'
and'non-GNU' projects.  If your project is approved for inclusion into
Savannah, we will set its type to 'non-GNU'.

If your project is accepted into the GNU project you may change its
type.  You can do this by asking us.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Regards.

Item status changes:

Assigned to -> marioxcc
Status -> In progress
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEAREIAAYFAkyzs7sACgkQZ4DA0TLic4gmkQCgjnZCDeWUNFYQR1TNHOjUbUtO
KOcAoIo5ciEmCODBBcRxLalN1xK0kUCQ
=2Loh
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Mario Castelán Castro <marioxcc>
Tue 12 Oct 2010 12:11:28 AM UTC, original submission:  

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):



Registration Details


  • Name: Opus Libre
  • System Name:  opus-libre
  • Type: Official GNU software
  • License: GNU General Public License v2 or later (opus_libre comes with an example music score: rms' Free Software Song (yeah, big fan here :). Obviously, full credit and copyright have been preserved.


The example score is located in scores/free/; license files are located in share/doc.  A disclaimer has been added to the COPYING file in case it wouldn't be clear enough that opus_libre includes only the framework, not any artistic work that may be published using the framework.
)




Description:

opus_libre is a user-friendly framework for the GNU LilyPond music notation software.

Whilst LilyPond input syntax is easy enough to learn for basic scores, managing large projects (an opera, a symphony or a book) can become quite challenging and often requires the user to code his/her own macros, think about the files structures, variables' names etc.  opus_libre aims to take this hassle away by automatically browsing through the file tree, collecting any music it finds and trying to organize by itself, both vertically (score structure) and horizontally (e.g. when the score is made of successive pieces).

Features include: additional easy-to-use input macros, language and source-code management system detection, support for graphic themes, multiple-languages edition,...

opus_libre is designed with standards and portability in mind.  It is organized accordingly to the *nix Filesystem Hierarchy Standard, exposes a fully localized input syntax to the user, and relies on Free Software only (lilypond, guile, gettext, glibc,...).

It is primarily written using guile-Scheme and LilyPond's native language (and as such should be able to run on any operating system), but will optionally call other programs such as git, makeinfo or metafont (these optional features are only supported on GNU/Linux systems). It may also process Postscript/SVG graphics, OpenType/Woff font files, basic CSS and texinfo files.


Other Software Required:

GNU LilyPond, GPLv3+ http://www.gnu.org/software/lilypond/
guile, GPLv3+ http://www.gnu.org/software/guile/
glibc, GPLv3+ http://www.gnu.org/software/libc/

optional:
metafont, (free software from pre-GPL times)  http://www.ctan.org/tex-archive/
git, GPLv2 http://www.kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/



Other Comments:

Greetings,

I have taken the liberty to use "yearA--yearC" notation in my copyright notices, mainly because it's what I'm used to with the GNU LilyPond project (although I do understand the rationale behind the "yearA, yearB, yearC" notation). Hope that won't be a problem.


Tarball URL:

http://repo.or.cz/w/opus_libre.git?a=snapshot


Valentin Villenave <v_villenave>

 

(Note: upload size limit is set to 16384 kB, after insertion of the required escape characters.)

Attach Files:
   
   
Comment:
   

No files currently attached

 

Depends on the following items: None found

Items that depend on this one: None found

 

Carbon-Copy List
  • -email is unavailable- added by alexfernandez (Posted a comment)
  • -email is unavailable- added by marioxcc (Posted a comment)
  • -email is unavailable- added by v_villenave (Submitted the item)
  •  

    There are 0 votes so far. Votes easily highlight which items people would like to see resolved in priority, independently of the priority of the item set by tracker managers.

    Only logged-in users can vote.

     

    Follow 4 latest changes.

    Date Changed by Updated Field Previous Value => Replaced by
    2010-10-15 marioxcc StatusIn Progress Done
        Open/ClosedOpen Closed
    2010-10-12 marioxcc StatusNone In Progress
        Assigned toNone marioxcc

    Back to the top

    Powered by Savane 3.13-02a9.
    Corresponding source code