Savannah rejects a project because it uses GPL

MJ Ray mjr at
Mon Feb 13 16:44:45 UTC 2006

"Alfred M\. Szmidt" <ams at> [skip much]
> >  > 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...

It is perfectly true to say that a house is not a petrol car,
if you don't think it's any sort of car.

> >  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 than 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.

Debian delivers on its promise:
To get a 100% free software distribution from debian, get the
official distribution by download or from any of the places
listed on

You can't get a 100% free software distribution from GNU today.

> >  Would you praise debian if pointed at a mirror that
> >  doesn't carry any non-free software?
> Does or does not carry non-free software? Does or does
> not carry non-free software?
> Clearly, the answer is `Yes. No'.  You are jumping into the realm of
> itsy bitsy semantics.

Nonsense. You're playing silly DNS configuration games. (aka and are
not equivalent. If you compared that debian mirror with the main
GNU mirror (ibiblio), you'd see that both carry non-free software.

MJ Ray - personal email, see
Work:  Jabber/SIP ask

More information about the Discussion mailing list