Savannah rejects a project because it uses GPL

[Alfred M. Szmidt]

   > >  > 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.

Where?  A search for the word `credit' only shows the a hit in the
preamble.  The invariant sections can be used for other things than
`credit'.

   > >  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. :-(

Here is something I can agree with.  The GFDL isn't exactly a easy
read compared to the GFDL.  And this is one place where it requires
some work so such confusions do not happen.

The GPL is a pleasent read, I still cringe each time I must read the
GFDL.

   > 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.

To be precis, I'm not agreeing that they are not `free software'.
They are simply not software, period.  Be it free, non-free,
propietary, etc.  It is like calling a house for `non car', it isn't a
car to begin with...

   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.

Since Debian is not upholding that promise, I cannot agree with this.
I wish I could.

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

Does or does not ftp.debian.org carry non-free software? Does or does
not ftp.gnu.org carry non-free software?

Clearly, the answer is `Yes. No'.  You are jumping into the realm of
itsy bitsy semantics.

Cheers, and thank you for the more pleasent tone in your message,
hopefully I'll achive the same to you.