Savannah rejects a project because it uses GPL

Alfred M. Szmidt ams at
Wed Feb 22 23:23:10 UTC 2006

   > 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.

Please state what these problems are then, I don't think anyone
objects to having a discussion about any problems the GFDL has (I even
think that it has some problems, but invariant sections are not one of
them; the major problem with the GFDL is infact that it is far to long
and to complex so one can grasp it correctly).

Nobody is concealing them, or is fighting against any criticism for
the GFDL.  The problem is that some people simply have the wrong
starting point, just like people who consider non-free software
something that is morally and ethically correct.

Also, it would be nice if people stopped saying `the GFDL is not a
free license', this has absolutley no meaning whatsoever.  I too err
on this.  It leads to a massive confusion over what one is discussing
since it implies that there is a specific set of freedoms that apply
to _all_ works, a set of freedoms that is always the same no matter
what one discusses.  It is a clever tactic that is used exessivley by
those who try to convince people that the GFDL is suppsoedly a bad
license, much like calling treacherous computing for `trusted

   And please stop this flame,

This is just a heated discussion between hard headed hackers.  If you
consider that a flame, then you are not capable of having any
discussion about anything one has a passion for.


More information about the Discussion mailing list