On 2023-03-05 03:31 (-4), jr wrote:
> Cousin Ricky <ric### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
>> I have additional comments on these rules.
>>
>> On 2023 21:37 (-4), Cousin Ricky wrote:
>>>
>>> LICENSE
>>> [snip]
>>>   This file is licensed under the terms of the CC-LGPL
>>>
>>> This exact wording is required by the upload software; you will not be
>>> allowed to upload your module without it.  The "CC" is due to Creative
>>> Commons having once provided an online deed for the GNU licenses.
>>
>> Creative Commons has since removed the deed from their website, and the
>> link now redirects to gnu.org.  It has been proposed that the "CC" be
>> removed, but the upload software had not been updated to accept this as
>> of the time of the crash.
> 
> so what, exactly, are/ought-to-be the implications?  the submission as such, and
> aiui, would still require some form of (permissive) licensing by the author(s).
> what, ideally, would the check upon upload look for?

I am not proposing that we move away from the LGPL.  I'm thinking that
the upload software could accept "GNU-LGPL" as well as "CC-LGPL," that
the phrase "Creative Commons" be dropped from the documentation on
lib.povray.org, and that the documentation link directly to gnu.org.
But as long as the Creative Commons link redirects to gnu.org, this is
not a major issue.

Post a reply to this message