taskSavannah Administration - Tasks: task #13205, Submission of Claws Mail

 
 

task #13205: Submission of Claws Mail

Submitted by:  Ricardo Mones <mones>
Submitted on:  Thu 15 May 2014 10:36:15 AM UTC  
Votes:  70  
 
Should Start On: Thu 15 May 2014 12:00:00 AM UTCShould be Finished on: Sun 25 May 2014 12:00:00 AM UTC
Category: Project ApprovalPriority: 5 - Normal
Status: In ProgressPrivacy: Public
Percent Complete: 0%Assigned to: Pavel Kharitonov <ineiev>
Open/Closed: OpenEffort: 0.00

Add a New Comment (Rich MarkupRich Markup):
   

You are not logged in

Please log in, so followups can be emailed to you.

 

(Jump to the original submission Jump to the original submission)

Fri 24 Oct 2014 07:26:37 AM UTC, comment #21:

Hi Pavel!

Well, some progress has been made, but we don't expect icon licensing issues to be resolved until December, when the contest to get a properly licensed theme ends.

You and the rest of savannah comunity are invited to participate, of course :-)

http://www.claws-mail.org/theme-contest-2014.php

Thanks for your patience!

Ricardo Mones <mones>
Fri 17 Oct 2014 07:14:51 AM UTC, comment #20:

Hello, Ricardo!

Two months later: any progress? Any ideas on when we can expect the issues to be resolved?

Thank you!

Pavel Kharitonov <ineiev>
Site AdministratorIn charge of this item.
Tue 12 Aug 2014 12:57:57 PM UTC, comment #19:

Of course, it's possible; please let us know when you resolve those issues.

Pavel Kharitonov <ineiev>
Site AdministratorIn charge of this item.
Tue 12 Aug 2014 12:24:03 PM UTC, comment #18:

> Hello, Ricardo!
>
> Are you still interested in registering this package on Savannah?


Sure, if it's still possible. Anyway some time is needed to solve the default icon set issue.

Ricardo Mones <mones>
Tue 12 Aug 2014 12:09:41 PM UTC, comment #17:

Hello, Ricardo!

Are you still interested in registering this package on Savannah?

Pavel Kharitonov <ineiev>
Site AdministratorIn charge of this item.
Fri 04 Jul 2014 04:27:29 AM UTC, comment #16:

Hello, Ricardo!

> Indeed, it's just a suggestion because in practice is not the length of the file what matters


No, what matters is copyrightability, and its standards are pretty low, universally. TTBOMK monostichs are copyrightable.

Now, I can see that you updated the copyright notices in Makefile.ams.

The remaining issues I can see are:

plugins/notification/gtkhotkey/x11/tomboykeybinder.c
gtk/gtksctree.h
gtk/authors.h
gtk/headers.h
plugins/notification/gtkhotkey/x11/tomboykeybinder.h
plugins/rssyl/rssyl_update_feed.h
plugins/rssyl/rssyl_feed.h
plugins/rssyl/strutils.h
plugins/rssyl/rssyl_gtk.h
plugins/rssyl/rssyl_feed_props.h
plugins/rssyl/old_feeds.h
plugins/rssyl/rssyl_prefs.h
plugins/rssyl/rssyl_parse_feed.h
plugins/rssyl/rssyl_cb_menu.h
plugins/rssyl/rssyl.h
plugins/rssyl/parse822.h
plugins/rssyl/libfeed/parser_opml.h
plugins/vcalendar/icaltime_as_local.h
po/Makevars
po/merge-po-from-plugin.sh
po/POTFILES.in
po/remove-potcdate.sin
tools/kdeservicemenu/install.sh
tools/eud2gc.py
may lack licensing terms and copyright statement.

tools/tb2claws-mail
tools/calypso_convert.pl
tools/tbird2claws.py
may lack copyright notice.

Can you check them?

Pavel Kharitonov <ineiev>
Site AdministratorIn charge of this item.
Wed 25 Jun 2014 11:43:15 PM UTC, comment #15:

Re XPMs - you are not the first project to have icons or other small images of unknown, but almost certainly ok, provenance. Of course it would be good to replace them, but I don't see it as grounds for rejection.

Regarding the "shortened" copyright notice,

# Copyright 1999-2014 the Claws Mail team.
# This file is part of Claws Mail package, and distributed under the
# terms of the General Public License version 3 (or later).
# See COPYING file for license details.

I don't think it's recommendable as a general practice (or rms would have already written it up that way), but I don't see a problem with accepting it here. I can't imagine a problem resulting from it in practice.

My $0.02, FWIW ...

Karl Berry <karl>
Site Administrator
Wed 25 Jun 2014 04:20:03 PM UTC, comment #14:

> Programs come and go. I recall bochs image files of earlier
> distros that became technically illegal because it's practically
> impossible to get their corresponding source code.


Yeah, but since traveling to past to dismantle the internet is not
yet possible I think that's a risk we can assume :)

Anyway we're already technically illegal because of the XPMs source,
which I think is a better reason to reject the submission.

Ricardo Mones <mones>
Wed 25 Jun 2014 04:04:57 PM UTC, comment #13:

> GNU documentation suggests 15 lines long files are nontrivial [0],
> so most Makefile.ams are, and certainly src/Makefile.am.
> [0] https://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain/html_node/Legally-Significant.html


Indeed, it's just a suggestion because in practice is not the length of the file what matters. These files are long (specially the src/Makefile.am) because they list each source file in one line, not because they're specially complicated.

Ricardo Mones <mones>
Wed 25 Jun 2014 03:28:50 PM UTC, comment #12:

> So, author of Foobar copied a Makefile.am from last copy of Claws
> Mail available in the Universe and then shredded it!


Programs come and go. I recall bochs image files of earlier distros that became technically illegal because it's practically impossible to get their corresponding source code.

Pavel Kharitonov <ineiev>
Site AdministratorIn charge of this item.
Wed 25 Jun 2014 03:12:32 PM UTC, comment #11:

> If you read it closely it says 'nontrivial' source file. These already
> have the text recommended by GPL.


GNU documentation suggests 15 lines long files are nontrivial [0],
so most Makefile.ams are, and certainly src/Makefile.am.

[0] https://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain/html_node/Legally-Significant.html

Pavel Kharitonov <ineiev>
Site AdministratorIn charge of this item.
Wed 25 Jun 2014 02:53:51 PM UTC, comment #10:

Hi Pavel,

> Hello, Ricardo!
> > AFAIK default GPL usage is always 'or later' unless specifically
> > removed,
>
> The GPL says
>
> Now, "or any later version" is obviously not present in
>
> The GPL version is implicitly defined by the text of COPYING, so
> it's GPLv3-only; someone might claim that it's GPLv-any, but it's
> a stronger statement IMHO.
> > but there's no problem in clarifying that in the header.
>
> See below.
> >> formally, COPYING is a modification of the GPLv3, which is
> >> forbidden.
> >
> > That's simply not true, the license in COPYING is bit by bit the
> > content of http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.txt
> >
> > It's pretty clear where the license starts,
>
> You may be right here.


"may be"? :)

> > and the GPL howto¹ itself says
>
> You may have noticed that the GPL howto says
> using the GPL unconditionally involves adding the copyright
> notices and statement of copying permission to all sources.


Yep, that's the reason I plan to change the two lines to include that.

> > “In GNU programs the license is usually in a file called COPYING.”
> > not that the COPYING file must contain only the license.
>
> In GNU programs every source file should contain copyright and
> licensing notices as per [0] and [1], so no additional text
> in COPYING is ever needed.
> [0] https://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain/html_node/License-Notices.html
> [1]
> https://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain/html_node/License-Notices-for-Documentation.html


If you read it closely it says 'nontrivial' source file. These already
have the text recommended by GPL.

Since the meaning of nontrivial can be quite controversial I think that
the reduced pointer is more than enough for auxiliary files, see below.

> >> There are also other practical concerns: let us imagine that the
> >> files are copied to another project where the texts of licenses
> >> (for different files) are GPL, LGPL, MIT and a few more, and
> >> COPYING is Apache 2.0; the context would be lost, unlike if you
> >> put the notices as the GPL recommends.
> >
> > There's no way you can defend against bad copying practices: let's
> > imagine only the code is copied and not the comments, for example.
>
> There is no way to defend against all of them; however, there are
> ways to defend against some of them. also, plain copying of files is
> hardly a bad practice: if the authors use the methods the GPL
> recommends, there is absolutely nothing wrong.
> For the original authors, it's virtually as easy to put such full
> notices in their sources as the short reference, but the full notices
> make it essentially easier to re-use the code for other people.


A reduced version can be equally valid for trivial files, which is not
what I achieved with my first attempt. But given your feedback I think
this version

# Copyright 1999-2014 the Claws Mail team.
# This file is part of Claws Mail package, and distributed under the
# terms of the General Public License version 3 (or later).
# See COPYING file for license details.

contains all required elements.

> > Anyway when copying our two-line pointer is pretty clear where the
> > file came:
> >
> > # This file is part of Claws Mail package.
> > # See COPYING file for license details.
> >
> > Even if this appear in a source file of a Foobar project, I think
> > everybody can understand the license referred there is in the
> > COPYING file of Claws Mail package, not in other random COPYING
> > files.
>
> Sure, but Claws Mail package may be unavailable at that point.


So, author of Foobar copied a Makefile.am from last copy of Claws
Mail available in the Universe and then shredded it!

Really? :)

Ricardo Mones <mones>
Wed 25 Jun 2014 01:33:16 PM UTC, comment #9:

Hello, Ricardo!

> AFAIK default GPL usage is always 'or later' unless specifically removed,


The GPL says

Now, "or any later version" is obviously not present in

The GPL version is implicitly defined by the text of COPYING, so
it's GPLv3-only; someone might claim that it's GPLv-any, but it's
a stronger statement IMHO.

> but there's no problem in clarifying that in the header.


See below.

>> formally, COPYING is a modification of the GPLv3, which is forbidden.
>
> That's simply not true, the license in COPYING is bit by bit the content of
> http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.txt
>
> It's pretty clear where the license starts,


You may be right here.

> and the GPL howto¹ itself says


You may have noticed that the GPL howto says
using the GPL unconditionally involves adding the copyright
notices and statement of copying permission to all sources.

> “In GNU programs the license is usually in a file called COPYING.” not
> that the COPYING file must contain only the license.


In GNU programs every source file should contain copyright and
licensing notices as per [0] and [1], so no additional text
in COPYING is ever needed.

[0] https://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain/html_node/License-Notices.html
[1] https://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain/html_node/License-Notices-for-Documentation.html

>> There are also other practical concerns: let us imagine that the
>> files are copied to another project where the texts of licenses
>> (for different files) are GPL, LGPL, MIT and a few more, and
>> COPYING is Apache 2.0; the context would be lost, unlike if you
>> put the notices as the GPL recommends.
>
> There's no way you can defend against bad copying practices: let's imagine
> only the code is copied and not the comments, for example.


There is no way to defend against all of them; however, there are ways
to defend against some of them. also, plain copying of files is hardly
a bad practice: if the authors use the methods the GPL recommends,
there is absolutely nothing wrong.

For the original authors, it's virtually as easy to put such full
notices in their sources as the short reference, but the full notices
make it essentially easier to re-use the code for other people.

> Anyway when copying our two-line pointer is pretty clear where the file came:
>
> # This file is part of Claws Mail package.
> # See COPYING file for license details.
>
> Even if this appear in a source file of a Foobar project, I think everybody
> can understand the license referred there is in the COPYING file of Claws Mail
> package, not in other random COPYING files.


Sure, but Claws Mail package may be unavailable at that point.

Pavel Kharitonov <ineiev>
Site AdministratorIn charge of this item.
Wed 25 Jun 2014 08:00:03 AM UTC, comment #8:

> > It's just a pointer, like own's GPL usage, though less verbose,
> > of course, and much more direct. The pointed file contains all
> > the information, including copyright and license version.


> For the reference: I looked at
> http://git.claws-mail.org/?p=claws.git;a=blob;f=COPYING;h=bd673f83
> It doesn't say files are GPLv3 or later, so I'd interpret this as
> "GPLv3-only";


AFAIK default GPL usage is always 'or later' unless specifically removed, but there's no problem in clarifying that in the header.

> formally, COPYING is a modification of the GPLv3, which is forbidden.


That's simply not true, the license in COPYING is bit by bit the content of http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.txt

It's pretty clear where the license starts, and the GPL howto¹ itself says “In GNU programs the license is usually in a file called COPYING.” not that the COPYING file must contain only the license.

> There are also other practical concerns: let us imagine that the
> files are copied to another project where the texts of licenses
> (for different files) are GPL, LGPL, MIT and a few more, and
> COPYING is Apache 2.0; the context would be lost, unlike if you
> put the notices as the GPL recommends.


There's no way you can defend against bad copying practices: let's imagine only the code is copied and not the comments, for example. Putting a longer notice won't prevent this. If the developer doing the copy is aware of licensing it will incorporate COPYING content into its own COPYING file and/or do the required modifications so the context is not lost.

Anyway when copying our two-line pointer is pretty clear where the file came:

# This file is part of Claws Mail package.
# See COPYING file for license details.

Even if this appear in a source file of a Foobar project, I think everybody can understand the license referred there is in the COPYING file of Claws Mail package, not in other random COPYING files.

¹ http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-howto.en.html

Ricardo Mones <mones>
Tue 24 Jun 2014 05:22:56 PM UTC, comment #7:

> Well, given VCS history I don't think we can set an appropriate copyright... Anyway we're already looking for a solution for this...


Thank you!

> It's just a pointer, like own's GPL usage, though less verbose, of course, and much more direct. The pointed file contains all the information, including copyright and license version.
>
> I'm curious why do you think it doesn't do. Is it not understandable? Do you know of any case where something like this has been defeated in a court maybe?


For the reference: I looked at
http://git.claws-mail.org/?p=claws.git;a=blob;f=COPYING;h=bd673f83dcf2a113448b2adfaf8b72cea97fe0d0;hb=58a62e07e425e957a5f3ae53d51e60b3a103fd20

It doesn't say files are GPLv3 or later, so I'd interpret this as "GPLv3-only"; formally, COPYING is a modification of the GPLv3, which is forbidden.

There are also other practical concerns: let us imagine that the files are copied to another project where the texts of licenses (for different files) are GPL, LGPL, MIT and a few more, and COPYING is Apache 2.0; the context would be lost, unlike if you put the notices as the GPL recommends.

Pavel Kharitonov <ineiev>
Site AdministratorIn charge of this item.
Tue 24 Jun 2014 08:35:20 AM UTC, comment #6:

> I've cloned the repository; as far as I can see,
> the issue with the images hasn't been resolved (including the XMPs);


Well, given VCS history I don't think we can set an appropriate copyright or even authorship without an unbearable effort, since they probably come from 1.x GNOMEs and other similar ancient sources. I remember having done from scratch a couple of them myself, but that's just a minimal part.

Anyway we're already looking for a solution for this, which is basically is to replace them all with something with a known license. This will take some time, as you may figure out.

> also, some source files lack licensing and copyright notices, e.g.
> plugins/notification/gtkhotkey/gtk-hotkey-marshal.c; additionally,


Yes, it's how author wrote it (it comes from another GPLv3 project). Anyway this will be fixed.

> I don't think a notice like
> # This file is part of Claws Mail package.
> # See COPYING file for license details.
> will really do; in particular, it doesn't say anything
> about the copyrights and possible versions of the license.


It's just a pointer, like own's GPL usage, though less verbose, of course, and much more direct. The pointed file contains all the information, including copyright and license version.

I'm curious why do you think it doesn't do. Is it not understandable? Do you know of any case where something like this has been defeated in a court maybe?

regards,

Ricardo Mones <mones>
Fri 06 Jun 2014 07:57:14 AM UTC, comment #5:

You are right, LGPL2.1 is compatible with GPL2+.

If MPL 1.0 is not accepted as plugin license, then the plugin
in question is LGPL2.1.

Pavel Kharitonov <ineiev>
Site AdministratorIn charge of this item.
Fri 06 Jun 2014 07:30:03 AM UTC, comment #4:

Hi,

> Besides that, it seems to me that "LGPL2.1-only or MPL 1.0"
> plugins might raise a compatibility issue.


Gnu.org seems to tell us LGPL2.1 only is compatible with GPL3+ in the
compatibility matrix :

https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#AllCompatibility

(I want to use a library under)

Also, we don't even have MPL 1.0 in the list of acceptable plugins
licence, as far as I can read my own code?

Colin Leroy <colinleroy>
Fri 06 Jun 2014 06:36:29 AM UTC, comment #3:

Hello, Ricardo!

I've cloned the repository; as far as I can see,
the issue with the images hasn't been resolved (including the XMPs);
also, some source files lack licensing and copyright notices, e.g.
plugins/notification/gtkhotkey/gtk-hotkey-marshal.c; additionally,
I don't think a notice like

# This file is part of Claws Mail package.
# See COPYING file for license details.

will really do; in particular, it doesn't say anything
about the copyrights and possible versions of the license.

Besides that, it seems to me that "LGPL2.1-only or MPL 1.0" plugins
might raise a compatibility issue.

Pavel Kharitonov <ineiev>
Site AdministratorIn charge of this item.
Thu 29 May 2014 05:55:54 PM UTC, comment #2:

Hi Pavel,

Sorry for the late response but we have been busy with preparing a new release¹ where hopefully most of your concerns have been fixed. Some other which didn't get in time for release has already been fixed in git².

Not sure if this qualifies enough or you have any other comment about things that could be improved.

Regarding your personal comment: the "shamelessly copied from" was once a somewhat common and jokingly way to give credit, probably more common a decade ago than nowadays.

Anyway it doesn't mean we're not fully aware of your remarks ;-)

¹ http://sourceforge.net/projects/claws-mail/files/Claws%20Mail/3.10.0/claws-mail-3.10.0.tar.xz/download
² http://git.claws-mail.org/?p=claws.git;a=commit;h=bdf30023

Ricardo Mones <mones>
Sat 17 May 2014 09:02:08 AM UTC, comment #1:

Hello, Ricardo!

Thank you for your submission!

I see just a couple of issues with your tarball.

NEWS, po/ja.po, po/en_GB.po (and many other source files
in po/), m4/aspell.m4 [*], m4/spamassassin.m4, m4/check-type.m4,
m4/Makefile.am (and some other files in m4/), claws-mail.png [**],
claws-mail.desktop, doc/man/claws-mail.1, src/common/Makefile.am,
tools/README, src/plugins/vcalendar/libical/design-data/status.txt,
src/plugins/vcalendar/libical/design-data/properties.csv,
src/plugins/vcalendar/libical/scripts/mkderivedcomponents.pl
and so on lack licensing terms.

Also, tools/README says that textviewer.pl uses "Linux" utilities.
I think you meant "GNU/Linux"; none of the mentioned utilities has anything
to do with the specific kernel.

Could you fix that?

I'm sorry if I missed something; your package is impressively
large.

[*] Please note that copying is never a theft; and you
shouldn't do it "shamelessly": if you do it ethically and legally,
there is nothing to be ashamed, and if it isn't ethical, you
shouldn't do it at all. (This is a personal remark rather than
a formal Savannah requirement.)

[**] Sometimes it may not be practical to embed licensing terms
in graphical files, but in such cases you should specify
the conditions somewhere in README file next to the images.

Pavel Kharitonov <ineiev>
Site AdministratorIn charge of this item.
Thu 15 May 2014 10:36:15 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: Claws Mail
  • System Name: claws-mail
  • Type: non-GNU software and documentation
  • License: GNU General Public License v3 or later

Description:

Claws Mail is an email client (and news reader), based on GTK+, featuring:

- Quick response
- Graceful, and sophisticated interface
- Easy configuration, intuitive operation
- Abundant features
- Extensibility
- Robustness and stability

The appearance and interface are designed to be familiar to new users coming
from other popular email clients, as well as experienced users. Almost all
commands are accessible with the keyboard.

The messages are managed in the standard MH format, which features fast access
and data security. You'll be able to import your emails from almost any other
email client, and export them just as easily.

Lots of extra functionality, like an RSS aggregator, calendar, or laptop LED
handling, are provided by extra plugins.

Other Software Required:

List is long, you can see the dependencies here:

https://packages.debian.org/sid/claws-mail

Each package has/should have a homepage you can visit also.

Other Comments:

We are moving away from SourceForge and looking for a new official home for the download tarballs.

We think Savannah's philosophy and goals fits perfectly with our beliefs, much better than googlecode/github or any other "famous" proprietary hosting site.

You can read more about the project at:

http://www.claws-mail.org

And browse current sources at:

http://git.claws-mail.org

Thanks in advance.

Tarball URL:

http://ftp.de.debian.org/debian/pool/main/c/claws-mail/claws-mail_3.9.3.orig.tar.gz

Ricardo Mones <mones>

 

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

Attach File(s):
   
   
Comment:
   

No files currently attached

 

Depends on the following items: None found

Items that depend on this one: None found

 

Carbon-Copy List
  • -unavailable- added by karl (Posted a comment)
  • -unavailable- added by colinleroy (Posted a comment)
  • -unavailable- added by ineiev (Posted a comment)
  • -unavailable- added by hmbrand (Voted in favor of this item)
  • -unavailable- added by colinleroy (Voted in favor of this item)
  • -unavailable- added by claws (Voted in favor of this item)
  • -unavailable- added by mones (Submitted the item)
  •  

    Do you think this task is very important?
    If so, you can click here to add your encouragement to it.
    This task has 70 encouragements so far.

    Only logged-in users can vote.

     

    Please enter the title of George Orwell's famous dystopian book (it's a date):

     

     

    Follow 5 latest changes.

    Date Changed By Updated Field Previous Value => Replaced By
    Sat 17 May 2014 09:04:01 AM UTCineievStatusNone=>In Progress
      Assigned toNone=>ineiev
    Fri 16 May 2014 12:19:46 PM UTChmbrandCarbon-Copy-=>Added hmbrand
    Fri 16 May 2014 12:14:34 PM UTCcolinleroyCarbon-Copy-=>Added colinleroy
    Fri 16 May 2014 11:22:01 AM UTCclawsCarbon-Copy-=>Added claws

    Back to the top


    Powered by Savane 3.1-cleanup