Savannah rejects a project because it uses GPL

[simo]

On Wed, 2006-02-22 at 23:52 +0100, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
> Some people consider the GPL a non-free software license.  I fail to
> see your point.  The GPL is a free software license, and the GFDL is a
> free documentation license (not because it is a documentation license,
> but because of the rights it gives to users).

I do not object that the GFDL is a free _Documentation_ license, but I'd
say that unfortunately it is a bad license, it has many problems, and
there's no need to conceal them and fight against any criticism like it
be a matter of faith.


To all:

I do not think it is time to write the GFDL2, we need to concentrate on
GPLv3 now, and once that's out there will be plenty of space to ask for
a revision of the GFDL. It's a matter of priorities.

And please stop this flame, I think anyone on this list have clear what
the various positions are, there's non need to get over and over again.
Let's concentrate on finding out bugs on the GPLv3 so that we will
hopefully not see flames on its quality as soon as it is declared final.

Simo.