Savannah rejects a project because it uses GPL

[MJ Ray]

"Alfred M\. Szmidt" <ams at gnu.org>
> >  > I don't see any `credit' clause in the GFDL.
> >  Do you really see nothing requiring credit of the licensors?
> No, I don't.  Try doing a search for the word.

It's in the licence, both explicitly and implicitly.

> >  "The GFDL is meant as a way to enlist commercial publishers [...]"
> >  - Richard Stallman, "Why publishers should use the GNU FDL",
> >  online at http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-gfdl.html
> 
> Once again, you are simply ignoring anything that was written and
> making up things.  There is no _CLAUSE_ in the GFDL to entice anything
> of this sort.  What the motive is, was or will be is totally
> irrelevant!

I find it hard to believe that RMS started out with a particular
aim for the FDL and then FSF didn't include anything to achieve it.
Anyway, the publicly-explained intent of the drafter and licensor
plays a large part in copyright (in case law systems, at least)
and so Eben Moglen's affadavit in Progress Software Corp. v.
MySQL AB, Civil Action No. 01-11031 PBS was relevant.

> [...] to actually read what is written. [...]
> seems that you are on purpose trying to misread everything [...]
> Have you actually read [...]
> You haven't read it at all.  It is perfectly clear from the way you
> are misreading everything one writes, so it is impossible that you
> have actually read the GFDL closely. [...]
> 
> >  > [...]  If it is so simple, you could atleast point me to one of
> >  > these `numerous FAQs', I'm not sure what they try to answer.
>
> >  http://people.debian.org/~srivasta/Position_Statement.html and
> >  http://home.twcny.rr.com/nerode/neroden/fdl.html for starters.
> 
> Both are full of errors, and both authors have misread the GFDL
> complteley.

I think using "both" to describe about a dozen authors shows
how well those documents were read. :-(

If so many of us mere authors have completely misread the FDL and
mistaken it for an adware licence, then it is confusing at best
and should be rephrased as soon as possible. Authors should be
able to understand the licence themselves, in case they need to
help enforce it in future.

[...]
> >  Here's the parse tree I intended:
> >    (((non-)(free software)) (manuals))
> 
> Ok.  Then the sentence makes even less sense, since manuals are not
> software, they cannot be classifed as "non-free software", or "free
> software".

So, we agree they are not free software, but for different reasons.
We should agree that debian is doing the right thing to uphold
its promise of producing a 100% free software distribution and
not apply higher standards to debian.org than gnu.org. The dispute
is really that some want debian to change its promise, but that's
happened for years, in different ways.

[skipping some unattributed quotes, repeats and unsupported claims]
> The GNU project, cannot control what mirrors host.  They can control
> what they host.  Debian does host non-free software, just go and poke
> in ftp.debian.org.  Now try to find non-free software on ftp.gnu.org.
> 
> Yet again you make absurd comparisons that have NOTHING to do with the
> issue at hand, and have no relation to reality.  You are obviously
> very confused to think that a mirror is the same place as ftp.gnu.org.

ftp.debian.org has address 128.101.80.133
133.80.101.128.in-addr.arpa domain name pointer debian-mirror.cs.umn.edu.

It feels entirely reasonable to compare a major debian mirror with
a major GNU mirror like ftp.ibiblio.org. I don't think having
A records for the mirrors makes a significant difference. Comparing
ftp.gnu.org with ftp.debian.org is comparing apples and oranges.

Would you praise debian if ftp.debian.org pointed at a mirror
that doesn't carry any non-free software?

-- 
MJ Ray - personal email, see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html
Work: http://www.ttllp.co.uk/  irc.oftc.net/slef  Jabber/SIP ask