taskSavannah Administration - Tasks: task #9014, Submission of gPHPEdit


task #9014: Submission of gPHPEdit

Submitted by:  Anoop John <anoopjohn>
Submitted on:  Thu 15 Jan 2009 05:47:05 PM UTC  
Should Start On:  Thu 15 Jan 2009 12:00:00 AM UTC Should be Finished on:  Sun 25 Jan 2009 12:00:00 AM UTC
Category:  Project Approval Priority:  5 - Normal
Status:  Done Privacy:  Public
Percent Complete:  90% Assigned to:  -Deleted Account- <nicalvaro>
Open/Closed:  Closed 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)

Fri 30 Jan 2009 05:24:19 AM UTC, comment #18: 

I've approved your project--welcome on board! :-)

You'll receive a mail notification with further instructions shortly.

Happy hacking!

-Deleted Account- <nicalvaro>In charge of this item.
Fri 30 Jan 2009 05:21:08 AM UTC, comment #17: 

Alright, I re-reviewed the project files, I will approve the project in the next 5 minutes. I will let you know what the other administrators think when I get a specific answer on the gtkscintila/scintilla licensing issue.

There are few problems, but are below the line of rejection.

The range issue is driving me crazy. intltool-extract.in has the range issue, but that's not your fault. There are still 3 Makefile.am from your project which have the range issue.

You have old versions of the GPL version 2 and license notices. When you get around to updating the license notices, it's probably best to use the GPL version 3 style, but replace the version 3 with version 2.


I've approved your project--welcome on board! :-)

You'll receive a mail notification with further instructions shortly.

Happy hacking!

-Deleted Account- <nicalvaro>In charge of this item.
Thu 29 Jan 2009 08:52:38 AM UTC, comment #16: 

Ok, I have taken out the gtkscintilla folder completely. You can download the latest from


Although I am not really convinced about the nitty-gritties for which the code has been excluded I am taking it out for the sake of convenience of getting the show going :-). Yes I understand your dilemma but I really do feel that we need to figure out explicit reasons as answers to some of my questions stated in the thread.

Anoop John <anoopjohn>
Wed 28 Jan 2009 10:57:13 PM UTC, comment #15: 

Well, I will approve it today if you promise not to upload the gtkscintilla and the scintilla code because of the issues described below. I am sorry it doesn't make sense to me to include their code. The convenience part you are trying to state sounds as if you need the code to work.

The Percent Complete 0% and Assigned to None are not bugs. I am not required to changed the Assigned to until I close the project submission.

-Deleted Account- <nicalvaro>In charge of this item.
Wed 28 Jan 2009 08:31:47 PM UTC, comment #14: 

Any update on this?

Anoop John <anoopjohn>
Tue 27 Jan 2009 04:09:40 AM UTC, comment #13: 

> Do we really have to handle the year issue? I checked out one another GNU project - gnuchess and it had files that had year in ranges. Would it be practical to list out 50 years if there are as many years? What is the advantage of listing out the exact years? Nevertheless I have fixed the issue in all files under the gphpedit tree except those under the gtkscintilla folder.

I really do not know. We are having a discussion about this same issue and many of the people are having your same concerns and we are working to figure out why this is happening. The majority of us do not have law backgrounds so we can only guess why the FSF lawyers said to do this. I read somewhere that it is only necessary to place.

> Do we have to include the license notice in the po files and the pot file? I checked out grep package po files and they don't have that. I have included the license notices any way.

Yes, please, since as I understand it is used for computer instructions is it not? Also, address any date range issues with the way we are recommending now, until we figure it out the correct way.

I was told we do not want any code with out any license notice on this site.

> Kindly approve the git access asap. I am itching to get into development mode and move on from the legal detective mode :-)

As I was doing some recent copyright law research, I found a lot of the crazy notion we must destroy all imaginary property thieves!!! They are all terrorists. Seriously. Unfortunately, if you provide a forfeit copyright notice, you might get a slug.

  • Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-403), signed Oct. 13, 2008

I lost my mouse cursor and it is late at night. I will have a confirmation the final decision on what to do by tomorrow, okay.

-Deleted Account- <nicalvaro>In charge of this item.
Mon 26 Jan 2009 07:09:38 PM UTC, comment #12: 

I just noticed that the item is assigned to "None" and the Percent complete is "0%". Is that a bug in the system?

Anoop John <anoopjohn>
Mon 26 Jan 2009 07:07:38 PM UTC, comment #11: 

Do we really have to handle the year issue? I checked out one another GNU project - gnuchess and it had files that had year in ranges. Would it be practical to list out 50 years if there are as many years? What is the advantage of listing out the exact years? Nevertheless I have fixed the issue in all files under the gphpedit tree except those under the gtkscintilla folder.

Do we have to include the license notice in the po files and the pot file? I checked out grep package po files and they don't have that. I have included the license notices any way.

Regarding the changes in gtkscintilla - the package is under GPL - so the files have to be GPL I guess(Ref:https://sourceforge.net/projects/moleskine/) . I have contacted both authors to confirm this and I would believe that it should be fine since the project has been abandoned long ago as Scintilla has native GTK support these days.

I have added a pixmaps.license file in the pixmaps folder that is to act as the license notice for the pixmaps listed inside the file.

One of the first objectives once the git access is approved is to move out the dependency on scintilla to be a library dependency. But I think it would be far more convenient for the initial development if we have everything under the same repository. That is why I am trying to make sure that everything is in one place.

I think I have addressed all the issues mentioned in the last mail except the year issue under the gtkscintilla folder which I believe should not be an issue considering the gnuchess package that I have mentioned.

Kindly approve the git access asap. I am itching to get into development mode and move on from the legal detective mode :-)

Anoop John <anoopjohn>
Thu 22 Jan 2009 02:39:45 AM UTC, comment #10: 

I apologize for not noticing the copyright year range before, but that also should be changed all the other files in the gphpedit project, if we are to do this correctly.

Sebastian had suggested that you place the copyright notice, license notice, and the name of the pixmap in a file in the pixmaps directory.

-Deleted Account- <nicalvaro>In charge of this item.
Thu 22 Jan 2009 02:18:25 AM UTC, comment #9: 

Okay, the below changes are fine, except instead of making using the
Copyright (c) 2003 - 2005 Andy Jeffries
it should say
Copyright (c) 2003, 2004, 2005 Andy Jeffries

diff -r gphpedit-0.9.1-5.orig/configure.in gphpedit-0.9.91-5/configure.in
diff -r gphpedit-0.9.91-5.orig/data/Makefile.am gphpedit-0.9.91-5/data/Makefile.am
diff -r gphpedit-0.9.91-5.orig/doc/Makefile.am gphpedit-0.9.91-5/doc/Makefile.am
diff -r gphpedit-0.9.91-5.orig/intltool-merge.in gphpedit-0.9.91-5/intltool-merge.in
diff -r gphpedit-0.9.91-5.orig/intltool-update.in gphpedit-0.9.91-5/intltool-update.in
diff -r gphpedit-0.9.91-5.orig/Makefile.am gphpedit-0.9.91-5/Makefile.am
diff -r gphpedit-0.9.91-5.orig/src/Makefile.am gphpedit-0.9.91-5/src/Makefile.am

I am not sure about this one, because it says that is under the same license as gphpedit package which to me does not serve the purpose of the license notice.
diff -r gphpedit-0.9.91-5.orig/pixmaps/Makefile.am gphpedit-0.9.91-5/pixmaps/Makefile.am

These changes worry me, because they are the copyrights of some other people not associated with your project.

diff -r gphpedit-0.9.91-5.orig/src/gtkscintilla2/Makefile gphpedit-0.9.91-5/src/gtkscintilla2/Makefile
diff -r gphpedit-0.9.91-5.orig/src/gtkscintilla2/marshal.c gphpedit-0.9.91-5/src/gtkscintilla2/marshal.c
diff -r gphpedit-0.9.91-5.orig/src/gtkscintilla2/marshal.h gphpedit-0.9.91-5/src/gtkscintilla2/marshal.h
diff -r gphpedit-0.9.91-5.orig/src/gtkscintilla2/scigen.py gphpedit-0.9.91-5/src/gtkscintilla2/scigen.py

I did look at the new tarball and I did notice the changes. I was trying to say that I think that those changes to the gtkscintilla files and the idea of adding the BSD licenses for the authors of the scintilla files are not good to do. This is my opinion.

If you do not think it would harm the project to remove the gtkscintilla and scintilla directories, then please do.

I think it would be a better idea to look at the position that you may have to rewrite this project anyways because there are few dependencies that might need upgrading to the new versions.

Gnome VFS is going through deprecation

GTK+, GTKHTML, libgnomeui are actually LGPL.

-Deleted Account- <nicalvaro>In charge of this item.
Wed 21 Jan 2009 09:46:01 PM UTC, comment #8: 

Did you get a chance to look at the items mentioned?

Anoop John <anoopjohn>
Tue 20 Jan 2009 09:40:55 PM UTC, comment #7: 

I checked out the list thread. It looks like you are discussing about the binary which I have already taken out from the source tarball. Please download the latest tarball from


 My comment #4 lists the existing issues outside of the scintilla directory - each of the issue have corresponding to them my questions related to them.

Then in comment #5, if the answer to the question posted is in the affirmative then I can include the scintilla directory without problems but if not then I might have to exclude the scintilla directory from the source which should again not be a big issue. I am pursuing this issue at the scintilla issue queue but there the general feel I get is that the whole package is under a BSD like license and that if the notice is missing it should just be assumed that the file is under the same Scintilla license.

Thank you for your patience in reviewing the code in detail and helping in sorting this issue out

Anoop John <anoopjohn>
Tue 20 Jan 2009 02:42:46 AM UTC, comment #6: 

My opinion is not to add what you think are the copyright notices and license notices for the authors. I am not an expert on this, but I do think that this is wrong. I needed a sanity check so I started a thread about our issues here in the mailing list. Maybe I should ask about this issue, too.


It maybe a better idea to reconsider distributing gtkscintilla2 and scintilla, because of these issues. I was told your best bet is to have the user install the dependencies.

Let's talk about why it is a bad idea to add the license notices for the author.

1. You have no idea who wrote and when they wrote it.

  • When you put in the copyright notice in for someone else, one would assume that one of those people contributed code in it, when it is possible that they did not, thus giving others credit they didn't do. When you place the year in a notice for them it could be the wrong year.

2. You have no idea which license they actually mean to place for those files. Different files may have different licenses as long as it complies with the other licenses in the program. Neil had to confirm that Patrizio which license Patrizio wanted.

I assumed that Andy Jeffries and the other copyright owners allowed you the authority to add the copyrights, but I cannot be certain of the others.

-Deleted Account- <nicalvaro>In charge of this item.
Tue 20 Jan 2009 12:27:43 AM UTC, comment #5: 

It seems there was an implied license agreement for developers of scintilla. An interesting conversation, though not pleasant :-), regarding the licensing is happening at https://sourceforge.net/tracker2/?func=detail&aid=2518216&group_id=2439&atid=102439
The whole package is under a BSD like license and the implicit license for included files is the package license. If that is correct then I can go ahead and add the same license notice to all files, right? And that should move the road block for me, isn't that so?


Anoop John <anoopjohn>
Mon 19 Jan 2009 12:08:04 AM UTC, comment #4: 

Thanks for pointing out the issues :-). I have already started contributing to Free Software even before the code is on a public CVS. I have reported an issue with the Scintilla development team and have contacted whoever had emails in the comments sections of the files regarding the license.

Ref: https://sourceforge.net/tracker2/?func=detail&aid=2518216&group_id=2439&atid=102439

Regarding the remaining files that do not have notices, I have filtered down the list to the following


---- Since these are derived from GPLed files, they should be fine right?
---- I checked the source of grep and these files have similar notices in grep as we have here.
---- I was a bit confused when you said first that they are non-trivial and then
---- you mentioned that they are derived.

PO Files
---- Both these have - "This file is distributed under the same license as the gphpedit package."
---- Is that enough?

---- Can you please take a look at ./po/Makefile.in.in and see if that is fine.

Application Icon
---- Since this was created by the original author who released the package under GPL, this is under GPL.
---- I have removed the other binary as it was not needed in the code. Even otherwise it
---- was the scintilla.so library derived from the same scintilla code base

I have uploaded the modified tarball to the same location

Thanks once again.



Anoop John <anoopjohn>
Sun 18 Jan 2009 05:29:24 AM UTC, comment #3: 

The licenses that are included in the code you included are fine. The scintilla license looks similar to the X11 license. Public domain is also GPL compatible.

The text files and configuation files should not matter for not having a license notice. There are some who debate over whether to put a license notice in the Changelog.

Makefiles unless they are non-trivial and non-derived do not need a license notice. All makefiles seem pretty non-trivial to me, so I won't be the judge.

A project that I am part of does have the license notice for the .po files.

Autogenerated == derived

Can you not find the source for the binary file?

I will ask about what to do with that and that there are bunch of scintilla files that do not have license notices.

-Deleted Account- <nicalvaro>In charge of this item.
Sat 17 Jan 2009 08:33:15 PM UTC, comment #2: 

I have gone through the source files and have reviewed all files that did not have the copyright notice and the license information. I used the source tarball of grep from savannah to base my decisions to add the text to those files where there were a corresponding notice in the grep package. I have classified the remaining files where the notice strings were not present in gphpedit (as well as grep wherever there is a similar file). The following are the observations. I will need some guidance in proceeding from here. Please also see comments inline below.

MIT License
---- GPL compatible

---- GPL compatible

Text files - non source

Configuration files


Public Domain
---- Is this OK?

4 files from gtkscintilla project - non source text and binary files

161 files in
---- This folder is included as this is an older version of scintilla that was used for developing the editor
---- The license of scintilla is Historical Permissions Notice and Disclaimer
---- http://www.scintilla.org/License.txt
---- Is this OK?
---- The source is included as that is the version of scintilla
---- for which the wrappers have been created.
---- I would believe that this is OK since the package is currently present in debian and fedora. Or is it?

PO Files


The following are the dependencies
- gtk+-2.0
- libgnomeui-2.0
- gnome-vfs-2.0
- libgtkhtml-2.0
All of these are standard gnome libraries and are GPLed.

I have uploaded the modified tarball to the same location

Thanks for your help.



Anoop John <anoopjohn>
Sat 17 Jan 2009 04:31:53 AM UTC, comment #1: 

Hi, please forgive my delay, but now I am reviewing your project.

This hosting site requires that a license with the phrase "or (at your option) any later version" be included to all non-trivial and non-derived source files. Source files include Makefiles, scripts, and ChangeLogs from your project. If you would run these commands you find that there are plenty of files that lack the license notice.

gphpedit-0.9.91-5.orig$ grep -RL -i -e "(at your option)" ./ > ../withoutphrase
gphpedit-0.9.91-5.orig$ grep -Rl -i -e "(at your option)" ./ > ../withphrase
gphpedit-0.9.91-5.orig$ diff ../withphrase ../withoutphrase

You would find the files without the license notice in the bottom section.

Here is a howto of including the GPL license notice to your project files.


Also, could you list the urls to your dependencies and which license they use.

This howto may help you more if you have any other questions.


Good luck.

-Deleted Account- <nicalvaro>In charge of this item.
Thu 15 Jan 2009 05:47:05 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: gPHPEdit
  • System Name:  gphpedit
  • Type: non-GNU software & documentation
  • License: GNU General Public License v2 or later


gPHPEdit is a lightweight UTF-8 compatible text editor for the GNOME desktop environment. It is primarily designed for PHP/HTML/CSS editing. The application is currently part of popular GNU/Linux distributions like Debian, Ubuntu, Fedora and Gentoo. It is developed using C/GTK and uses Scintilla as the editing component. The following are some of the key features - Dropdown Function Lists, Function Parameter Popups, Class/Function Browser, Syntax Checking, Integrated PHP Help

Other Software Required:

Scintilla - GPL - scintilla.org

Other Comments:

The project was earlier hosted in sourceforge by its original developer. I have taken over the maintenance of the project (Ref: http://www.gphpedit.org/content/1/gphpedit-development-and-maintenance-restarted) and felt that this project is better hosted on a free platform like Savannah.

As a proof of myself becoming the current maintainer the hosting for the domain gphpedit.org has been transferred to me. I have just started setting up a Drupal installation on it and hence the site is still bare.

The original developer Andy can be contacted at http://andyjeffries.co.uk or via mail at -email is unavailable-


Tarball URL:


Anoop John <anoopjohn>


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

Attach Files:

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 nicalvaro (Posted a comment)
  • -email is unavailable- added by anoopjohn (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.




    Follow 4 latest changes.

    Date Changed by Updated Field Previous Value => Replaced by
    2009-01-30 nicalvaro StatusNone => Done
        Percent Complete0% => 90%
        Assigned toNone => nicalvaro
        Open/ClosedOpen => Closed

    Back to the top

    Powered by Savane 3.5