Savannah rejects a project because it uses GPL

Alfred M. Szmidt ams at
Fri Feb 10 16:37:00 UTC 2006

   > It is a free license (one can modify, use, distribute works
   > licensed under the GFDL). It isn't a free _software_ license.

   The restrictions on modification (particularly the obnoxious
   advertising clause and the encyclopedia problem) and distribution
   are too heavy in the opinions of many people. Whether it's "free",
   who knows? Who cares? It's unusable for free software.

It is usable for free software.  The GFDL has no `advertising clause',
and has no `encyclopedia' problems, for some odd reason Wikipedia
seems to thrive on the GFDL.  There are no restrictions on how you can
modify a GFDLed manual, the invariant sections are not part of the
main manual.

The GFDL is perfectly usable for free software, despite your claims
which you cannot even back up.

   > Classifying all licenses as `free' or `not-free' is like saying
   > `Intellecutal property', it can mean anything, and it can mean
   > nothing.

   Actually, I agree with this, including the consequence that your
   claim FDL "is a free license" means nothing.

That doesn't follow.  The GFDL is a _particular_ license, which is
free.  Classifying _all_ licenses as free or not free is what makes no

   Since the FDL, that just confuses some people who should be
   supporting debian and I try to discourage it.

Considering the problems with Debian and the inclusion of non-free
software, one shouldn't support it.  Better to support 100% free
systems like UTUTO-e.

More information about the Discussion mailing list