Savannah rejects a project because it uses GPL

MJ Ray mjr at
Wed Feb 22 23:29:42 UTC 2006

"Alfred M\. Szmidt" <ams at>

> >  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. [...]

Yes, the corrections *happened* after it was posted.

I have no info about whether the savannah hackers were working
on a fix before that: can you prove your claim?

>    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. 

So you're not required to license under FDL, but can license under
BSD and FDL if you wish: to me, that looks like requiring FDL to be
permitted and so it's not "untruths". You cannot use the GPL,
for example.

> Nor is the GFDL buggy in any sense that you claim that it is. [...]

Why is a new version planned, then, if it has no bugs?

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

More information about the Discussion mailing list