taskSavannah Administration - Tasks: task #16044, Submission of Ladspa Tool Kit

 
 

task #16044: Submission of Ladspa Tool Kit

Submitter:  Lewis ANESA <codecolla>
Submitted:  Fri 10 Sep 2021 09:17:40 PM UTC
   
 
Should Start On:  Fri 10 Sep 2021 12:00:00 AM UTC Should be Finished on:  Mon 20 Sep 2021 12:00:00 AM UTC
Category:  Project Approval Priority:  * 5 - Normal
Status:  Cancelled Privacy:  Public
Assigned to:  ineiev Open/Closed:  Closed
* Mandatory Fields

Add a New Comment Rich Markup
   

Jump to the original submission

Mon 15 Nov 2021 07:17:13 AM UTC, comment #16: 

Cancelling.

Ineiev <ineiev>
Site Administrator
Thu 07 Oct 2021 05:38:09 PM UTC, comment #15: 

comment #14:

> Found here : https://www.quora.com/Does-Glibc-use-GPL-license-Because-I-found-GPL-in-some-source-file-nscd-cache-c that glibc is :


Why do you keep looking for what third parties say about the license of Glibc (especially those who say it in ambiguous terms like "BSD license")?

> Bu[t] we can say that GNU Make is released under GNU GPLv3 license


This isn't quite correct; please check
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/identify-licenses-clearly.html

> and is obviously, like lots of other GNU's software, using the -and is so license compatible with- glibc.


It looks like you misunderstand what it means for packages to have compatible licenses.  In particular, it isn't the same that for the first package to be able to legally use the second one.

> Copyright lists contributors realesing these dependencies under the licenses I just listed.


I don't think I really understand this.

> Do I have to list third part licenses in LICENSE file of Ladspa tool kit?


Probably I don't understand this, either.

Ineiev <ineiev>
Site Administrator
Fri 01 Oct 2021 08:54:43 PM UTC, comment #14: 

Found here : https://www.quora.com/Does-Glibc-use-GPL-license-Because-I-found-GPL-in-some-source-file-nscd-cache-c that glibc is :
Over a core of ~15000 files with a million lines of code, only 472 files belong to compilable code where a copyright and license header are present. In total among these code files one will find in regards to license references:
36.9% BSD-3-Clause (174 files)
27.8% Public_Domain (131 files)
15.5% GPL (73 files)
10.2% GPL-2.0+ (48 files)
2.1% GPL-2.0 (10 files)
1.5% LGPL (7 files)
1.5% LGPL-3.0+ (7 files)
1.1% GPL-3.0+ (5 files)
1.1% LGPL-2.0 (5 files)
0.8% MIT (4 files)
0.6% BSD (3 files)
0.2% MIT, Public_Domain (1 file)
0.2% GPL-3.0 (1 file)
0.2% BSD-3-Clause, LGPL (1 file)
0.2% BSD, LGPL (1 file)
0.2% LGPL-2.1 (1 file) View

So glibc's LICENSE is hard to determine.
LICENSE file does not name used licenses,
so I can't search them on https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html

Bu we can say that GNU Make is released under GNU GPLv3 license and is obviously, like lots of other GNU's software, using the -and is so license compatible with- glibc.

Libunwind is delivered under apache V2 and so,
according to https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html,
is GNU GPLv3 compatible.

A part of this dependecy is under expat (MIT) which is also GPLv3 compatible
Another part of this dependecy is under NCSA (University of Illinois Open Source License) which is also GPLv3 compatible

Copyright lists contributors realesing these dependencies under the licenses I just listed.

Do I have to list third part licenses in LICENSE file of Ladspa tool kit?

Lewis ANESA <codecolla>
Tue 28 Sep 2021 08:43:32 AM UTC, comment #13: 

comment #12:

> > Err... we were speaking about copyright...
> Sorry, I got confused, yes, I'm ok with the copyright.


And I confused you once more: it doesn't matter whether you are ok
with the copyright system, what matters is whether the copyright
system is ok with your copyright notices; the question is
whether your notices are valid.

> So this raises a new question and I searched answers but I didn't seen any yet :
> If I sell an embedded system which carry GPLv3 software,
> will I have to release electronic schematic under GPLv3 too?


No. According to GPLv3, the schematics aren't included
in the Corresponding Source Code, and even when the design
comes under the GPL, the copyleft usually doesn't cover
the physical hardware,
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLHardware

For more on free hardware designs, you can read
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-hardware-designs.html

Ineiev <ineiev>
Site Administrator
Mon 27 Sep 2021 08:23:16 PM UTC, comment #12: 


> Err... we were speaking about copyright...

Sorry, I got confused, yes, I'm ok with the copyright.

> LGPL?

No, sorry I didn't use LGPL, nowhere, never.

> Well, you'll be able to claim...
> Can you check the license...

Ok, I spent that last days to better understand what
GNU GPLv3 automatically propagates to any software
by depending to an already covered piece of code.

That is fundamentally different with what I understood at the first time, ok.
That better protect what the project than what I expected, so that's still ok for me.

> Or because English isn't my native language...

May you let me know your native language?

So this raises a new question and I searched answers but I didn't seen any yet :
If I sell an embedded system which carry GPLv3 software,
will I have to release electronic schematic under GPLv3 too?

Best regards and thanks a lot for your patience.

Lewis ANESA <codecolla>
Fri 24 Sep 2021 03:53:09 PM UTC, comment #11: 

comment #10:

> > Was that correct?
>
> ladspa-tool-kit is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify

...

Err... we were speaking about copyright notices, and now you discuss license and license notices; don't you see the difference?

Then,

> it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by

...

> That's exactly what I want, that's why, I choosen,
> even before pushing the package here, the LGPL version 3.
> I thing following versions of LGPL will be trust worthy for me.


*L*GPL?

> It may be used for commercial use by someone else
> and in that case I won't be able to claim anything.


Well, you'll be able to claim something in any case.  These are basic things, you should understand them.

> I also don't want to deliver any working warranty, if one want to modify it
> without sharing modifications with us and sell what he secretly added to LTK, that's not a problem for me.
> As long as this man/woman, don't claim any warranty for what he/she cloned from this repository.


Can you check the license you use again?   What does it say, exactly, about warranties offered by the re-distributors?

> I may have misunderstood something since I'm french, english is not my native language.


Or because English isn't my native language, either; so our problem is twice as hard.

Ineiev <ineiev>
Site Administrator
Thu 23 Sep 2021 08:52:53 PM UTC, comment #10: 


> Was that correct?


ladspa-tool-kit 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.

ladspa-tool-kit 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.

That's exactly what I want, that's why, I choosen,
even before pushing the package here, the LGPL version 3.
I thing following versions of LGPL will be trust worthy for me.

It may be used for commercial use by someone else
and in that case I won't be able to claim anything.

And I'm ok with that, it's correct for me.
This tool is made to be used by anyone, I just want to be sure
that no one can claim ladspa-tool-kit as his own property.

I also don't want to deliver any working warranty, if one want to modify it
without sharing modifications with us and sell what he secretly added to LTK, that's not a problem for me.
As long as this man/woman, don't claim any warranty for what he/she cloned from this repository.

All of this is correct for me.

If you think I misunderstood something in LGPL v3 license and what I copied in my files,
feel free to explain me or give me readings or says to me read again this line "".
I may have misunderstood something since I'm french, english is not my native language.

Thanks for your patience.

Lewis ANESA <codecolla>
Thu 23 Sep 2021 05:33:01 AM UTC, comment #9: 

comment #8:

> > > >What were you advised?
> ...
> > > So I put myself (My own name) on copyright. (file #51945)
> > Was that correct?
> Don't know, that's done, (file #51945)
> Feel free to let me know if something isn't correct.


This approach isn't correct.  We expect that the admins of new Savannah packages understand basic licensing issues; it's crucial for keeping one's software free, generally.

> If you update infos of the project, notice that com #1 is erroneous :
> "landspa-tool-kit" no,
> "ladspa-tool-kit" yes.


Sorry, fixed.

Ineiev <ineiev>
Site Administrator
Tue 21 Sep 2021 09:53:56 PM UTC, comment #8: 


> > >What were you advised?

...

> > So I put myself (My own name) on copyright. (file #51945)
> Was that correct?

Don't know, that's done, (file #51945)
Feel free to let me know if something isn't correct.

The liscence of glibc is really hard to determine, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glibc says it's LGPL-2.1 or later
The LICENSES file in the project is full of copyright and liscences are directly wrote down.
Thererfore, it's really hard to know if it's "custom" or copied.

For libunwind, I can't find content of LICENSE file into the license list of this website.
Once again, this is not easy to find whether this file is "copy/modified" or "totally custom".

And if I can't put a name on it, may I copy their content here?

If you update infos of the project, notice that com #1 is erroneous :
"landspa-tool-kit" no,
"ladspa-tool-kit" yes.

Regards, Lewis ANESA.

Lewis ANESA <codecolla>
Tue 21 Sep 2021 02:53:16 PM UTC, comment #7: 

comment #6:

> >What were you advised?

...

> So I put myself (My own name) on copyright. (file #51945)


Was that correct?

> >Will you answer my question?
> >>"We encourage reasonably descriptive system names, "ltk" is too short; what about "landspa-tool-kit"?"
> >>>I'm ok for ladspa-tool-kit as long as the packages can be LTK and LTK-devel (Com #2)


Sorry, I missed that.

> >>"Then, please list licenses of your dependencies"
> >>>Answer in Com #2


Could you check again? "MIT license" is ambiguous, and the license of glibc isn't exactly LGPL v2.0.

> It looks like I must change the project infos instead of only throw them in comments.


No, you can't change them directly.

Ineiev <ineiev>
Site Administrator
Tue 21 Sep 2021 01:56:24 PM UTC, comment #6: 

Hi,

>What were you advised?
>>"Per the feedback we received on IRC the other day, I think you should
>>leave your own name in the copyright spaces in the header comments,
>>etc. for now." (recieved by mail, Ineiev and savannah-register-public in copy)


So I put myself (My own name) on copyright. (file #51945)

>Will you answer my question?
>>"We encourage reasonably descriptive system names, "ltk" is too short; what about "landspa-tool-kit"?"
>>>I'm ok for ladspa-tool-kit as long as the packages can be LTK and LTK-devel (Com #2)
>>"Then, please list licenses of your dependencies"
>>>Answer in Com #2
>>and be sure to add valid copyright and license notices to all copyrightable files in your tarball

Done in (file #51930), corrected in (file #51945)

It looks like I must change the project infos instead of only throw them in comments.
I'm gonna search for this.

Lewis ANESA <codecolla>
Tue 21 Sep 2021 11:05:20 AM UTC, comment #5: 

I'm confused a little bit.  What were you advised?  Have you any questions remaining?  Will you answer my question?

Ineiev <ineiev>
Site Administrator
Sun 19 Sep 2021 07:41:53 PM UTC, comment #4: 

I've been advised to put myself on copyright.

This answered the first question I had in the last post.
Following are pending and does not need quick reply.

Attached, you'll find the same tarball with the new copyright.

Thanks for advices.

(file #51945)

Lewis ANESA <codecolla>
Thu 16 Sep 2021 09:00:25 PM UTC, comment #3: 

Hi once again, are you okay if I put FSF as owner? :

Copyright © 2020, 2021 Free Software Foundation, Inc.  This file is part of ladspa-tool-kit.

I gave the tarball of the sources only.
The complete packages encapsulates it with some doc and pic,
Some description files, and the most important :
scripts to turn it into an RPM package.

I would have the hole thing hosted on savannah but is that a sane way to work with GNU plateform?

the tarball I just added contains FSF as owner, same directory skeleton and files, all copyrighted. I hope I've missed nothing.

(file #51930)

Lewis ANESA <codecolla>
Thu 16 Sep 2021 12:41:49 PM UTC, comment #2: 

I'm ok for landspa-tool-kit as long as the packages can be LTK and LTK-devel

I'm gonna give here the licences of the dependencies :

gcc <- GPLv3+ with GCC Runtime Library Exception
glibc <- LGPL-2.0
make <- GPLv3+
libunwind <- MIT

One extension I would add in the future is a windowing one depending on Wayland, also under MIT

Would MIT licence ok for GNU project?

I'm gonna update my tarball soon with :
Copyright (C) 2021 Lewis ANESA
And the text shown at that page : https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-howto.html

Lewis ANESA <codecolla>
Tue 14 Sep 2021 07:29:32 AM UTC, comment #1: 

We encourage reasonably descriptive system names, "ltk" is too short; what about "landspa-tool-kit"?

Then, please list licenses of your dependencies, and be sure to add valid copyright and license notices to all copyrightable files in your tarball---having them is our hosting requirement.

Ineiev <ineiev>
Site Administrator
Fri 10 Sep 2021 09:17:40 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: Ladspa Tool Kit
  • System Name:  ltk
  • Type: non-GNU software and documentation
  • License: GNU General Public License v3 or later





Description:

LTK is a sane, leak free object oriented framewor for C.
On  one  side, the LTK core library enables object oriented programming in c.
Each instances optionnaly embeed members, attributes and a destructor function.
On the other side, the LTK core library provides easy functions to perform utility task.

The goal is to leave gcc void of warnings/errors and compilation time and valgrind empty of errors at run time.
A particularity is that LTK is tunable enough to prepare a real time program for the run phase.
At run phase, if prepared the right way, the framework permit class instantiation
and instance destruction without having any calls to malloc, calloc, realloc or free.

The implementation is simply a free list collection builder.
Each slot in the list stores attributes and a pointer to class type definition.
The class type definition is a structure that stores size of an instance
and a function pointer array that one can call members (a kind of vtable).
Inheritance is supported but not multiple inheritance.

Utilities gather rand and hash functions, array allocator (for access as if it was in stack),
pipe-fork-exec all in one function and log utility with backtrace using libunwind.
(not sure valgrind can be void once calling libunwind).

I've two goals now :
- Add extensions (io polling, timer, sockets)
- Make it GNU ready


Other Software Required:

gcc <- Well known
glibc <- Well known
make <- Well known
libunwind <- Savannah non gnu project


Other Comments:

None


Tarball URL:

https://savannah.gnu.org/submissions_uploads/LTK-1.6.6.tar.gz


Lewis ANESA <codecolla>

 

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

Attach Files:
   
   
Comment:
   

Attached Files
file #51945:  LTK-1.6.7.tar.gz added by codecolla (27KiB - application/gzip)
file #51930:  LTK-1.6.7.tar.gz added by codecolla (27KiB - application/gzip)

 

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 codecolla (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 6 latest changes.

    Date Changed by Updated Field Previous Value => Replaced by
    2021-11-15 ineiev StatusIn Progress Cancelled
        Open/ClosedOpen Closed
    2021-09-19 codecolla Attached File- Added LTK-1.6.7.tar.gz, #51945
    2021-09-16 codecolla Attached File- Added LTK-1.6.7.tar.gz, #51930
    2021-09-14 ineiev StatusNone In Progress
        Assigned toNone ineiev

    Back to the top

    Powered by Savane 3.13-f8d8.
    Corresponding source code