Savannah rejects a project because it uses GPL
Alfred M. Szmidt
ams at gnu.org
Wed Feb 22 23:37:07 UTC 2006
> > 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.
And the corrections didn't happen because of the postings
I have no info about whether the savannah hackers were working on a
fix before that: can you prove your claim?
Ask the Savannah hackers. The best place to go to the source.
Something you simply do not understand.
> 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
The GFDL should obviously be permited, anything else would be quite
silly. And you can use the GPL if you would like to, just like with
licensing your work under the GPL.
> 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?
I suggest you read what I wrote. If you wish to have a flame instead
of a discssion, then we can take that somewhere else. You have shown
your complete inability to read what is written several times now, and
it is getting boring.
More information about the Discussion