Savannah rejects a project because it uses GPL

[Alfred M. Szmidt]

   In case anyone missed it, the lesson was: publicise problems.
   The corrections happened after it was posted to many lists.

No, they didn't.  The savannah hackers knew about this before it
happened, and where working on a fix before it.  Publicising something
of this sort without a firm ground work is wrong.

   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.

Please spreading these untruths.  Nobody is requiring you to license
material under the GFDL, you can license it under the BSD and the GFDL
if you so wish.  Nor is the GFDL buggy in any sense that you claim
that it is.  That you dislike invariant sections is one thing, it
doesn't make it a bug (specially since invariant sections where
specially made for the GFDL).