Savannah rejects a project because it uses GPL

Lionel Elie Mamane lionel at
Mon Feb 20 14:07:21 UTC 2006

On Mon, Feb 20, 2006 at 01:52:37PM +0100, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
> At Mon, 20 Feb 2006 12:09:48 +0000,
> MJ Ray wrote:

>> Also, it's only a postponement, not a long-term fix. Please
>> help explain to savannah-hackers-public at gnu why requiring a
>> known-buggy GPL-incompatible licence is a bad idea.

> Requiring a certain license is just a stupid thing to begin
> with. The requirement should be that it's free (or you can add the
> extra requirement that it should be GPL-compatible like has,
> that's also useful because you then share all code).

> But if somebody wants to release his documentation under the BSD
> license, I don't see any reason why that should be forbidden by
> savannah.

It isn't. What they require is that the documentation be released
under the GFDL or a compatible license. You can dual (or triple)
license it under GFDL|GPL or GFDL|BSD or ...


More information about the Discussion mailing list