Savannah rejects a project because it uses GPL

[Sam Liddicott]

Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:

>   > I'm not sure what you mean, `non-free software manuals' to me reads as
>   > `non-free software manuals', i.e. manuals for non-free software.  If
>   > MJ meant something else, he is free to clarify.
>
>   Please do not use latin on an English-language list, especially
>   incorrectly. I meant non-free software manuals as manuals which are
>   not free software.
>
>The use of id est there was correct.  Please, stop making up things.
>You are obviously as hard headed as me.  The usage of `id est' in
>English is perfectly valid.  And my usage here was infact correct.
>
>
>Your messages are starting to be more and more like flame baits, and
>are simply distracting from the main issue.  Can we please get back to
>that instead?
>  
>

I'm generally involved in such lengthy debates rather than observing them.

I'd say you have both consolidated your positions pretty well and now 
the conversation is centrering around trivial details.
This means that the discussion has been successful, but strangely such 
discussions rarely feel that way to the participants which is why they 
carry on.

The case being made seems to be
1) either that the FDL is inadequate in it's
 a) provisions
or
 b) clarity,
for the purposes of some users.
2) It rankles when Savannah appear needlessly strict

Whether (2) is true depends on whether 1a or 1b is true.

Is anyone on the list able to throw some light on whether or not 
Alfred's concerns regarding the provisions and protections of the FDL 
are founded in fact of the FDL provisions, or just misunderstanding? 
(NOT on whether or not what concerns him concerns others)

Sam