taskSavannah Administration - Tasks: task #14578, Submission of Generic Data...

 
 

task #14578: Submission of Generic Data Structures Library

Submitted by:  Nicolas Darnis <ndarnis>
Submitted on:  Mon 03 Jul 2017 01:32:20 PM UTC  
 
Should Start On:  Sun 02 Jul 2017 10:00:00 PM UTC Should be Finished on:  Wed 12 Jul 2017 10:00:00 PM UTC
Category:  Project Approval Priority:  5 - Normal
Status:  In Progress Privacy:  Public
Percent Complete:  0% Assigned to:  Ineiev <ineiev>
Open/Closed:  Open Effort:  0.00

Add a New Comment(Rich Markup)
   

You are not logged in

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

 

( Jump to the original submission)

Sun 20 May 2018 07:25:54 PM UTC, comment #74:

This file is automatically generated by doxygen. Maybe I've badly understood doxygen license. I have understood that doxygen license does not apply on generated files, instead, the right license that applies on generated file is the main package license, so I' ve concluded its mine... If its not the case, which licence do you think I should use for this file (and others in the same conditions): GDFL, doxygen, other?
Thank you for your help.

Nicolas Darnis <ndarnis>
Sun 20 May 2018 07:16:38 AM UTC, comment #73:

I've just looked into doc/html/resize.js. It doesn't seem to include anything specific to your package. May you really claim your copyright for it?

Ineiev <ineiev>
Site AdministratorIn charge of this item.
Thu 03 May 2018 06:53:05 PM UTC, comment #72:

First, I' ve obvsiously fixed the wrong licence added in the doc/html/jquery.js. Second, I' ve worked for making generation of doc/html, doc/man3 and doc/latex decorelated. This allow me to specialize them in an easiest way than before. I' ve also modified README files under doc/ to explain which files are covered by which license. And I' ve tried to use GFDL v3 for all doc/. I think its in a better way... Thanks for your regards. (Archive just uploaded at its usual place).

Nicolas Darnis <ndarnis>
Sat 14 Apr 2018 04:34:27 PM UTC, comment #71:

Documentation should be released in GFDLv1.3+-compatible way.

Some notices don't seem valid: for example, Dimitri van Heesh has nothing to do with doc/html/jquery.js; also, the notice like "documents produced by doxygen... are not affected by this license" is confusing: why do they contain that notice, then? And what notices actually apply to them?

Ineiev <ineiev>
Site AdministratorIn charge of this item.
Tue 03 Apr 2018 01:25:15 PM UTC, comment #70:

Well, I'm not pardonable: I have totally forgotten to do the same job (than for js and html) for css files... :( I'm sorry, its now fixed in the last archive. I have also replaced the original GDSL licence notice by doxygen one in the files above (css, js and html) because they are generated by doxygen.

Nicolas Darnis <ndarnis>
Mon 26 Mar 2018 05:31:49 PM UTC, comment #69:

I think yes, I did take time to see the latest archive.

I've just downloaded http://ndarnis.free.fr/gdsl/gdsl-1.8.tar.gz and unpacked it; gdsl-1.8/doc/html/navtree.css has no notices.

Ineiev <ineiev>
Site AdministratorIn charge of this item.
Thu 22 Mar 2018 05:25:52 PM UTC, comment #68:

Did you take time to see in the latest gdsl archive that every file (including .js, .css, .html) is now embedding notice as Savannah policies expect? I guess everything is fine now, and I think nothing was forgotten this time...

Nicolas Darnis <ndarnis>
Thu 22 Mar 2018 05:24:35 PM UTC, comment #67:

It looks like your code sometimes adds invalid notices, e.g. it may say that a third-party file is copyrighted by you.

Some files still have no notices.

I've just noticed another issue: Savannah requires that the hosted packages release their documentation in an FDL-compatible way. The GPLv3+ isn't compatible with the GFDL1.3+.

Ineiev <ineiev>
Site AdministratorIn charge of this item.
Thu 08 Mar 2018 03:35:09 PM UTC, comment #66:

I've added code to add copyright notice to the header of all doc/html and doc/js files after doxygen generation. So its now easy for me to maintain them because I ve got no over work to do each time.
New archive is available as usual.
Thanks.

Nicolas Darnis <ndarnis>
Sat 03 Mar 2018 07:36:14 AM UTC, comment #65:

> I know JavaScript allow comments, but Doxygen don't allow to overwrite these autogenerated files, so I must left the js filenames in the html/README to make them covered


I think if your package must be released in a way that doesn't comply with Savannah policies, it shouldn't be hosted on Savannah.

Ineiev <ineiev>
Site AdministratorIn charge of this item.
Thu 01 Mar 2018 04:47:55 PM UTC, comment #64:

I've read the links you sent but its not enough clear to me :-( so:
- as I said in my previous post, I' ve already removed html filenames from the html/README as you ask me to do, because HTML allow comments and the copyright notice is in each html file
- I know JavaScript allow comments, but Doxygen don't allow to overwrite these autogenerated files, so I must left the js filenames in the html/README to make them covered
- I' ve left the man.3 filenames in the man3/README because I consider that this format does not allow comment inside.
Tell me if its looks good or if something else must be fixed.
The usual link is up-to-date.
Thank you.

Nicolas Darnis <ndarnis>
Wed 21 Feb 2018 05:11:07 PM UTC, comment #63:

Did you read the document ValidNotices links to, http://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain/html_node/Legal-Matters.html ?

It doesn't distinguish formats that are raw-readable and readable with some tools for the purpose of putting the notices in README rather than in the file itself, what it does distinguish is formats that allow comments with notices and formats that don't.

Ineiev <ineiev>
Site AdministratorIn charge of this item.
Wed 21 Feb 2018 04:41:57 PM UTC, comment #62:

You told me on the 02-13 that HTML files names should'nt be listed in README. OK, I've now removed them.
I' ve just tried to explain that I've choosen to list them in the README file because of their "non-humanily-readable state". I mean I'm distinguing 2 possibilities:
1. a file hold a copyright notice intended to be read by human without any interpretation (like command more on a raw text file)
2. a file hold a copyright notice NOT intended to be read by human before interpretating the file with a tool (as for html, or man.3 files).
So my decision was according to the following method:
for the first case, I' ve not listed those files in README (because the notice can be read without any effort), but I've listed the files described in second case in the README because their notice could be difficult be read (as for man3, and for HTML as I thought). I've understood on the 02-13 that you mean to remove HTML files from the README, so I conclude their notice is human-readable at your eyes. So my question was, must I do the same for man.3 files (ie. remove their names from the README)? IMO it could be strange because the man.3 files are very less readable without using a tool... I hope I'm enough clear. Thank you to tell me.

Nicolas Darnis <ndarnis>
Wed 21 Feb 2018 04:28:25 PM UTC, comment #61:

Hello, Nicolas!

> ...As the copyright notice is less readable in raw man3 files under man3/ dir...


I'm not sure what you mean. I believe it's readable.

What about the main point, HTML and JavaScript files having no notices in them?

Ineiev <ineiev>
Site AdministratorIn charge of this item.
Thu 15 Feb 2018 03:29:15 PM UTC, comment #60:

I've intentionnaly left all html files names in the README in html/ subdir (as for .3 files under man3 dir), because I thought the notice was not intended to be read without interpretating html files (resp. man3 files). So, as you mentionned, I've now removed all html files names from the html/README. As the copyright notice is less readable in raw man3 files under man3/ dir, its not clear if I must do the same or if I left man3 files listed in README...
Could you tell me that please?

Nicolas Darnis <ndarnis>
Tue 13 Feb 2018 01:51:01 PM UTC, comment #59:

It looks like the progress is not very great.

doc/html/README mentions HTML files; they shouldn't be listed in README,
they should include the notices themselves.

README is a fallback only for those files that don't allow comments
like images. HTML and JavaScript files do.

Ineiev <ineiev>
Site AdministratorIn charge of this item.
Wed 31 Jan 2018 04:04:30 PM UTC, comment #58:

Well, I'm totally confused...
The uploaded file was not the good one 8-( (easy visible because I made a big change in man pages generated by doxygen to avoid lack of copyright in some separated files).
I've just re-generated a good package after re-checked all files (all have a copyright or are listed in a README with a copyright note). I've uploaded it and this time, I checked the uploaded file itself. So now, it seems to be less probable that something can goes wrong again...
With my kind regards.

Nicolas Darnis <ndarnis>
Wed 24 Jan 2018 04:24:38 PM UTC, comment #57:

Yet when I less `find . -type f`, the thirty first file it opens is
./doc/man3/gdsl_hash.h.3 which lacks those notices :(

Ineiev <ineiev>
Site AdministratorIn charge of this item.
Thu 18 Jan 2018 03:54:49 PM UTC, comment #56:

I wish you a happy new year.
I 've took the time to check every file in every dir. I sincerely think that I have not forgotten any file (in particular every html file has got now a notice). You could take the archive at the usual place: http://ndarnis.free.fr/gdsl/gdsl-1.8.tar.gz
Thank you.

Nicolas Darnis <ndarnis>
Fri 22 Dec 2017 06:43:58 AM UTC, comment #55:

That's good (I assume that the rules are quite clear); but then, it's a responsibility of package maintainers rather than Savannah admins to make sure that the rules are enforced. In particular, you should check whether every file has valid notices. Did you do that?

Ineiev <ineiev>
Site AdministratorIn charge of this item.
Thu 21 Dec 2017 09:26:21 AM UTC, comment #54:

There is no discussion about your personal opinion. I understand clearly the need to respect savannah rules. So I'm answering YES: I'm agree with the rules you' re speaking about.

Nicolas Darnis <ndarnis>
Wed 20 Dec 2017 05:54:23 PM UTC, comment #53:

I'd like to clarify two things.

> I hope it's OK now, just tell me if you find another thing to do...


Roughly speaking, one may get an impression that we are discussing package compliance against my personal opinion about Savannah policies.

However, those rules seem quite unambiguous to me: all files should have valid copyright and license notices in proper places. Do we agree that the rules are clear and don't allow multiple interpretations?

Ineiev <ineiev>
Site AdministratorIn charge of this item.
Mon 18 Dec 2017 03:29:32 PM UTC, comment #52:

OK, so I have successfully added an html comment with copyright notice in all doxygen generated files (with HTML_HEADER). So, even toc files (like examples.html, modules.html or files.html) on which I can't decide their content, does now have the notice in html comments... I' ve also added the list of doxygen copyrighted files in man3/README and latex/README.
I hope it's OK now, just tell me if you find another thing to do...

New release: http://ndarnis.free.fr/gdsl/gdsl-1.8.tar.gz

Thank you.

Nicolas Darnis <ndarnis>
Mon 18 Dec 2017 08:04:43 AM UTC, comment #51:

Writing the notices in HTML comments is acceptable, making them visitor-visible is preferable.

Ineiev <ineiev>
Site AdministratorIn charge of this item.
Thu 14 Dec 2017 01:28:52 PM UTC, comment #50:

Do you think it's ok if the copyright notice in html files is written in html comments only (between <!-- / --> tags)? So, the notices will not be displayed within an html interpreter as a navigator (excepted for the main html page for example), but only be readable with raw/source html file display?

Nicolas Darnis <ndarnis>
Wed 13 Dec 2017 09:31:39 AM UTC, comment #49:

Yes, I' ve already tried it, but without success. When I ve some time, I'll try to go further in this direction, maybe I 've not tried all possibilities with this setting...

Nicolas Darnis <ndarnis>
Mon 11 Dec 2017 04:37:11 PM UTC, comment #48:

Did you try to define HTML_FOOTER?

Ineiev <ineiev>
Site AdministratorIn charge of this item.
Thu 07 Dec 2017 09:23:32 AM UTC, comment #47:

Yes, its only a toc file generated by doxygen... Unfortunately, its seems to be not possible to modify its generation...

Nicolas Darnis <ndarnis>
Thu 07 Dec 2017 09:16:27 AM UTC, comment #46:

doc/html/examples.html doesn't include the notices. I expect that it will.

Ineiev <ineiev>
Site AdministratorIn charge of this item.
Thu 07 Dec 2017 08:31:49 AM UTC, comment #45:

In the last tgz I uploaded yesterday night, the HTML files does include copyright notices... It was not the case in all other archives before. I found the way, by using good doxygen tags and by using some tricks (as modifying the src/mainpage.h.in file) to include the notice in these files... and I was glad to find it has worked well. When doc is generated by doxygen, you are dependant on it and you cant do what you want in the generated files: you can only use doxygen tags, as I did.
Does the generated html files are now correct for you since they include the copyright notice now? If not, could you show me an example of what you expect?
Thank you.

Nicolas Darnis <ndarnis>
Thu 07 Dec 2017 08:20:04 AM UTC, comment #44:

I see no fundamental reason why HTML files can't be generated with the notices included. Texinfo does include them in its output.

Ineiev <ineiev>
Site AdministratorIn charge of this item.
Thu 07 Dec 2017 08:08:28 AM UTC, comment #43:

I dont understand the goal of you last post.

You're right, but as I said, all html/ and man3/ files are generated by Doxygen, and I don't want to have to modify them once they' ve been generated... Its a lack of time and a huge and risky work: each time a source file is modified, doc must be regenerated, and then all generated files should be manually modified too... No one would do that... So I think I' ve found a good compromise into my last update, as you see, all html files includes now the copyright notices. So, is it ok now, or what could I do in the other case?
Thank you.

Nicolas Darnis <ndarnis>
Thu 07 Dec 2017 07:12:35 AM UTC, comment #42:

HTML files can include text and allow comments; they should embed the notices. README is only a fallback for formats that don't permit including notices.

Ineiev <ineiev>
Site AdministratorIn charge of this item.
Wed 06 Dec 2017 04:43:13 PM UTC, comment #41:

I did it. I think everything should at least be fine now (also copyright notices in examples files)!
You could check the new archive:
http://ndarnis.free.fr/gdsl/gdsl-1.8.tar.gz
Thanks.

Nicolas Darnis <ndarnis>
Mon 04 Dec 2017 04:12:18 PM UTC, comment #40:

I think it would be better if the list were included in README.
Is it really hard to keep the list of files there?

Ineiev <ineiev>
Site AdministratorIn charge of this item.
Thu 30 Nov 2017 01:32:21 PM UTC, comment #39:

OK, thank you for reading.

I have made some minor changes in it (see the link http://ndarnis.free.fr/README). Of course, the file I spoke in README file 'FILES.txt' contains the list of doxygen-(covered|generated) files. It' s easier for me to keep the list into a separated file I can generate each time I need it (with make fileslit in the doc/html dir).

If it's look good, I'll do the same for doc/man3/(README, FILES.txt).

I will also try to add copyright notice into examples generated files, but at this time I couldn't find how to do it... Examples are not covered by Doxygen in the same way of other things...

After that, I hope everything looks ok for you.

Thanks again.

Nicolas Darnis <ndarnis>
Wed 29 Nov 2017 04:18:07 PM UTC, comment #38:

Yes, I think it looks good.

Ineiev <ineiev>
Site AdministratorIn charge of this item.
Tue 28 Nov 2017 05:43:34 PM UTC, comment #37:

Could you check the doc/html/README file here please: http://ndarnis.free.fr/README?
Tell me if its look good to you.
Thanks.

Nicolas Darnis <ndarnis>
Fri 24 Nov 2017 07:31:20 AM UTC, comment #36:

> you said "copyright lines are OK" (in the doc/html/README), so
> I conclude that I should left the new paragraph I suggested to add
> (concerning doxygen licences and output-generated files too).
> Is that right?


Not licenses. I was speaking about copyright notices.

> I don' t understand "for the license [...] source file"


You suggested including this notice:

> Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software and its documentation
> under the terms of the GNU General Public License is hereby granted. No representations
> are made about the suitability of this software for any purpose. It is provided "as is"
> without express or implied warranty. See the GNU General Public License for more details.


I tried to point out that the form recommended by the GPL would be better:

> This program is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify
> it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
> the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or
> (at your option) any later version.
>
> This program 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 General Public License for more details.
>
> You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
> along with this program. If not, see <https://www.gnu.org/licenses/>.

Ineiev <ineiev>
Site AdministratorIn charge of this item.
Thu 23 Nov 2017 05:22:50 PM UTC, comment #35:

Yes, but only your first answer that is made of two points:

- first point: you said "copyright lines are OK" (in the doc/html/README), so I conclude that I should left the new paragraph I suggested to add (concerning doxygen licences and output-generated files too). Is that right?

- second point: I don' t understand "for the license [...] source file"

Maybe an example could help me.

Thanks for clearing.

Nicolas Darnis <ndarnis>
Thu 23 Nov 2017 08:57:40 AM UTC, comment #34:

Is anything still unclear?

Ineiev <ineiev>
Site AdministratorIn charge of this item.
Sun 12 Nov 2017 04:10:39 PM UTC, comment #33:

> Do you mean adding the lines I suggested in the doc/html/README could be enough ?


I mean that the copyright lines are OK, but for the license notice it would be better if you used the text that you use in your source files.

> For the copyright and licences notices in the generated HTML files, they are already in the files now, in a "copyright" section.


Files like doc/html/gdsl__bstree_8h.html do have them, but not files like doc/html/examples.html

> I have understood I should also add the doxygen-gererated files list in the doc/html/README (and I suppose into doc/man3/README too), I will do it.


The requirement is: all files should have appropriate notices; those notices should be embedded when the format allows; when the format doesn't allow that, the notices should be written in README.

The list of the files is needed to unambiguously link the files with the notices.

Ineiev <ineiev>
Site AdministratorIn charge of this item.
Sat 11 Nov 2017 10:07:09 AM UTC, comment #32:

Thanks for your help, but its not enough clear for me (I'm sorry, but english is not my native language, and my level is limited).
Do you mean adding the lines I suggested in the doc/html/README could be enough ?
For the copyright and licences notices in the generated HTML files, they are already in the files now, in a "copyright" section. So what I should do more ? Adding the lines I talk above ?
I have understood I should also add the doxygen-gererated files list in the doc/html/README (and I suppose into doc/man3/README too), I will do it.

Thanks for clearing this points, once fixed, I'll regenerate another tarball on the usual http target.

Nicolas Darnis <ndarnis>
Fri 10 Nov 2017 09:43:51 AM UTC, comment #31:

The copyright lines seem good; since Doxygen doesn't specify the version of the GPL, I think you may use the GPLv3+, and add the same license notice you use for your package.

It's still would be desirable to have copyright and license notices in the generated HTML files, and to list the files copied from Doxygen in README.

Ineiev <ineiev>
Site AdministratorIn charge of this item.
Sat 04 Nov 2017 05:49:03 PM UTC, comment #30:

You're perfectly right, that is not the question.
I took a look in doxygen doc and its stated that "Documents produced by doxygen are derivative works derived from the input used in their production; they are not affected by [doxygen license]." So, could you tell me if adding this header in the doc/html/README file looks fine:

"

  • The files is this directory, excepted this one and Makefile.am have been automatically
  • generated by Doxygen.

*

  • Doxygen license
  • Copyright © 1997-2016 by Dimitri van Heesch.

*

  • Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software and its documentation
  • under the terms of the GNU General Public License is hereby granted. No representations
  • are made about the suitability of this software for any purpose. It is provided "as is"
  • without express or implied warranty. See the GNU General Public License for more details.

*

  • Documents produced by doxygen are derivative works derived from the input used in their
  • production; they are not affected by this license.
  • So, all files in this directory are parts of the Generic Data Structures Library (GDSL).
  • Copyright (C) 1998-2017 Nicolas Darnis <ndarnis@free.fr>.

...
Thank you very much.

Nicolas Darnis <ndarnis>
Fri 03 Nov 2017 02:51:12 PM UTC, comment #29:

> All doc/html (png, js, css) files are generated by doxygen. What should I do for their copyright notice?


I believe that you, as an author of a free package, are responsible for making sure it's free. If you put anything to your tarball, you should check its status, which means that you should find out licenses and correct copyright notices for those files. And if it turns out that those files are proprietary, you shouldn't include them, because they'll render whole your package nonfree.

Am I wrong?

Ineiev <ineiev>
Site AdministratorIn charge of this item.
Sun 29 Oct 2017 05:41:51 PM UTC, comment #28:

All doc/html (png, js, css) files are generated by doxygen. What should I do for their copyright notice? A note for each of them in the README file is it sufficient? And, in this case, what kind of note? Should I just write its generated by Doxygen, copyright by who? I can't figure out by reading https://savannah.gnu.org/maintenance/ValidNotices/. So, thank you for your help because I don't know what I can do at this point for these files...

Nicolas Darnis <ndarnis>
Fri 27 Oct 2017 08:44:07 AM UTC, comment #27:

I'm afraid they don't follow our recommendations quite strictly. All copyrightable files should have licensing notices; PNG files in doc/html/ have none.

Did you check all your files? This is what you should have done to make sure your distribution follows our guidelines. I'd like to avoid the situation like you saying in comment #8 that there were no more wrongly attributed files, and then in comment #26 it appears that there still were.

Ineiev <ineiev>
Site AdministratorIn charge of this item.
Sun 22 Oct 2017 09:54:12 AM UTC, comment #26:

The doc/latex/README and doc/html/README files has been fixed to respect your recommandations. Please, take the new archive as usual: http://ndarnis.free.fr/gdsl/gdsl-1.8.tar.gz

Nicolas Darnis <ndarnis>
Wed 18 Oct 2017 04:06:57 PM UTC, comment #25:

Could you check files in doc/html/? README says they are all copyrighted by Nicolas Darnis, does that include doxygen.png?

Ineiev <ineiev>
Site AdministratorIn charge of this item.
Wed 18 Oct 2017 12:56:46 PM UTC, comment #24:

You can get the right file here:
http://ndarnis.free.fr/gdsl/gdsl-1.8.tar.gz
It seems that the savannah upload file mechanism could not work well in case of same file name between the current and the previous. That could explain a lot of mistakes...

Nicolas Darnis <ndarnis>
Tue 17 Oct 2017 06:53:22 AM UTC, comment #23:

The attachment systems seems to be not working very well...
So, I'll post my archive on an http link (today if I can), and I'll send you the link when done (same link than before, but with the updated tgz file).
Thanks.

Nicolas Darnis <ndarnis>
Mon 16 Oct 2017 03:59:32 PM UTC, comment #22:

Pardon?

Ineiev <ineiev>
Site AdministratorIn charge of this item.
Sat 14 Oct 2017 06:45:30 AM UTC, comment #21:

Oups... All Makefile.am fixed.

Nicolas Darnis <ndarnis>
Wed 11 Oct 2017 01:45:00 PM UTC, comment #20:

Thank you; please check other files as well: for example, doc/man3/Makefile.am lacks copyright and license notices.

Ineiev <ineiev>
Site AdministratorIn charge of this item.
Sat 07 Oct 2017 04:47:23 PM UTC, comment #19:

In case of upload failure, here is a good link:
http://ndarnis.free.fr/gdsl/gdsl-1.8.tar.gz

Nicolas Darnis <ndarnis>
Thu 05 Oct 2017 04:02:46 PM UTC, comment #18:

New try of uploading gdsl-1.8.tgz (2 120 731 bytes)...

Nicolas Darnis <ndarnis>
Thu 05 Oct 2017 03:52:15 PM UTC, comment #17:

Works for me; you could upload your file somewhere else and put a link here.

Ineiev <ineiev>
Site AdministratorIn charge of this item.
Thu 05 Oct 2017 12:31:47 PM UTC, comment #16:

I don't understand what's going wrong with the upload...
I did exactly the same as usual.
When my post is validated, savannah web site tells everything its ok. I will try again in a couple of days and I'll post a screen-capture thats shows everything looks fine.
What else could I do?

Nicolas Darnis <ndarnis>
Wed 04 Oct 2017 04:18:46 PM UTC, comment #15:

No joy.

Ineiev <ineiev>
Site AdministratorIn charge of this item.
Tue 03 Oct 2017 04:16:16 PM UTC, comment #14:

New try...

Nicolas Darnis <ndarnis>
Tue 03 Oct 2017 06:36:40 AM UTC, comment #13:

The archive didn't attach.

Ineiev <ineiev>
Site AdministratorIn charge of this item.
Mon 02 Oct 2017 04:38:15 PM UTC, comment #12:

I've found how to make doxygen generating copyright notice for files themselves. I've modified all my src/ header files accordingly and build the new archive joined to this post.
Hope its ok now...

Nicolas Darnis <ndarnis>
Wed 27 Sep 2017 03:30:31 PM UTC, comment #11:

Notices in doc/man3/gdsl_hash.3 doc/man3/gdsl_stack.3 are fine, but files like doc/man3/gdsl_hash.h.3 and doc/man3/_gdsl_bintree.h.3 still have no notices.

Ineiev <ineiev>
Site AdministratorIn charge of this item.
Mon 25 Sep 2017 04:14:18 PM UTC, comment #10:

As gdsl manpages and html doc are automatically generated by doxygen, it was not very easy for me to find how to add a copyright section... I think I have found a not-so-bad compromise. Just tell me if ok or not.
Thank you very much.

(file #41892)

Nicolas Darnis <ndarnis>
Sat 23 Sep 2017 12:09:15 PM UTC, comment #9:

Oh, real GNU rules are much more extensive, they include following GNU coding standards, for instance.

Now, the format of man pages allows copyright and license notices (see e.g. man less or man gawk), putting them in doc/man3/README won't do. Please figure out a way to put them in your man pages.

Ineiev <ineiev>
Site AdministratorIn charge of this item.
Thu 21 Sep 2017 06:23:30 PM UTC, comment #8:

I think there is no more file like this. It was coming from another package from which I copied it, and my script added the Copyright header... So I replaced the INSTALL file by one that should be alright (I've not found the autoconf one, so it's the GSL one, project in which I have contributed).

Thank you again for supporting all this mistakes, but its my first project onto real GNU rules, and I learn for the next ones.

(file #41859)

Nicolas Darnis <ndarnis>
Tue 19 Sep 2017 09:33:03 AM UTC, comment #7:

Thank you!

Are you sure INSTALL is copyrighted by Nicolas Darnis?
It's very similar to INSTALL coming with autoconf, but that
file says it's copyrighted by the FSF.

Are there other such files in your tarball?

Ineiev <ineiev>
Site AdministratorIn charge of this item.
Sun 17 Sep 2017 09:42:10 AM UTC, comment #6:

Here is attached the right tarball with its signature...

(file #41817, file #41818)

Nicolas Darnis <ndarnis>
Mon 11 Sep 2017 11:27:07 AM UTC, comment #5:

Thank you!

All copyrightable files in your distribution should have
valid copyright and license notices; many files in doc/html
have not (if some files have a format that practically doesn't
allow comments, the notices for those files should be written
in the README file located in the same directory).

Also, GPLv2+ notices have an obsolete FSF address,
I recommend replacing it with an URL like GPL HowTo suggests.

Ineiev <ineiev>
Site AdministratorIn charge of this item.
Sat 09 Sep 2017 09:06:18 AM UTC, comment #4:

As requested by Ineiev,
here is the asked tarball...
Thank you.

(file #41769)

Nicolas Darnis <ndarnis>
Thu 03 Aug 2017 10:21:54 AM UTC, comment #3:

No response; cancelling.

Ineiev <ineiev>
Site AdministratorIn charge of this item.
Mon 17 Jul 2017 07:01:25 AM UTC, comment #2:

If there is no further interest, I'll cancel this submission.

Ineiev <ineiev>
Site AdministratorIn charge of this item.
Tue 04 Jul 2017 07:08:22 AM UTC, comment #1:

Hello, Nicolas!

All non-trivial files in your distribution should have valid copyright and license notices.

In your tarball, ChangeLog INSTALL Makefile.am NEWS THANKS TODO
configure.ac gdsl-config.in src/mainpage.h.in
src/Makefile.am src/examples/Makefile.am
many files in doc/ have no license and copyright notices.

README has no copyright notices.

gdsl.spec gdsl.spec.in have no license notice.

Could you fix that?

Small supporting files like INSTALL can use a simple permissive license; if the format of files makes it impractical to put notices in them, they should be written in a README file in the same directory.

Also, GPLv2+ notices have an obsolete FSF address,
I recommend replacing it with an URL
like GPL HowTo suggests.

Ineiev <ineiev>
Site AdministratorIn charge of this item.
Mon 03 Jul 2017 01:32:20 PM 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: Generic Data Structures Library
  • System Name: gdsl
  • Type: non-GNU software and documentation
  • License: GNU General Public License v2 or later (This project was hosted on gna until gna has closed its server. I just wish to move this project on savannah.)

Description:

The Generic Data Structures Library (GDSL) is a collection of routines for generic data structures manipulation. It is a portable and re-entrant library fully written from scratch in pure ANSI C. It is designed to offer C programmers access to common data structures with powerful algorithms and hidden implementation. Available structures are lists, queues, stacks, hash tables, binary trees, binary search trees, red-black trees, 2D arrays, permutations, heaps and interval-heaps.

Other Software Required:

none

Tarball URL:

http://ndarnis.free.fr/gdsl/gdsl-1.8.tar.gz

Nicolas Darnis <ndarnis>

 

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

Attach Files:
   
   
Comment:
   

Attached Files
file #42069:  gdsl-1.8.tar.gz added by ineiev (2MiB - application/gzip - testing attachments (this is the same as file #41892))
file #41892:  gdsl-1.8.tar.gz added by ndarnis (2MiB - application/gzip)
file #41859:  gdsl-1.8.tar.gz added by ndarnis (2MiB - application/gzip)
file #41817:  gdsl-1.8.tar.gz added by ndarnis (2MiB - application/gzip)
file #41818:  gdsl-1.8.tar.gz.sig added by ndarnis (72B - application/octet-stream)
file #41769:  gdsl-1.8.tar.gz added by ndarnis (2MiB - application/gzip - here is the asked tarball...)

 

Depends on the following items: None found

Items that depend on this one: None found

 

Carbon-Copy List
  • -email is unavailable- added by ineiev (Posted a comment)
  • -email is unavailable- added by ndarnis (Submitted the item)
  •  

    Do you think this task is very important?
    If so, you can add your encouragement to it.
    This task has 0 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 12 latest changes.

    Date Changed by Updated Field Previous Value => Replaced by
    10/05/2017 ineiev Attached File- => Added gdsl-1.8.tar.gz, #42069
    09/25/2017 ndarnis Attached File- => Added gdsl-1.8.tar.gz, #41892
    09/21/2017 ndarnis Attached File- => Added gdsl-1.8.tar.gz, #41859
    09/17/2017 ndarnis Attached File- => Added gdsl-1.8.tar.gz, #41817
        Attached File- => Added gdsl-1.8.tar.gz.sig, #41818
    09/09/2017 ndarnis Attached File- => Added gdsl-1.8.tar.gz, #41769
    09/01/2017 ineiev StatusCancelled => In Progress
        Open/ClosedClosed => Open
    08/03/2017 ineiev StatusIn Progress => Cancelled
        Open/ClosedOpen => Closed
    07/04/2017 ineiev StatusNone => In Progress
        Assigned toNone => ineiev

    Back to the top


    Powered by Savane 3.3