Savannah rejects a project because it uses GPL

Alfred M. Szmidt ams at
Fri Feb 10 16:12:38 UTC 2006

   "For documentation, we are currently clarifying exactly what
   licenses we accept" and the recent edits to that FAQ are evidence
   that it is changing, which is what you asked for (although you cut
   your "please back that up" demand).

So once again, there is no requirement that documentation must be
licensed under the GFDL.  There are clarifications that are being
made, of which you, or I, know _nothing_ about.

   The driconf exchange was the evidence that it is now required that
   documentation must be licensed under the FDL. (Please don't use
   GFDL: you don't write GGPL.)

No, it is no evidence at all.  It is a specific case of which we have
_zero_ details about.  

   Sadly, this isn't baseless: Savannah rejected a project because it
   used the GPL, rather than a GPL-incompatible licence.

It is baseless, you have no clue about why it was rejected other than
a couple of messages.  Please, once again, stop making these baseless

More information about the Discussion mailing list