Savannah rejects a project because it uses GPL

[MJ Ray]

"Alfred M\. Szmidt" <ams at gnu.org>
> MJ Ray wrote:
> >  Yes, the corrections *happened* after it was posted.
> And the corrections didn't happen because of the postings

So you claim. Without proof. Again. (I didn't claim the contrary.) 

> >  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.

So no, you can't/won't support your claim. You are simply engaging
in wild handwaving for your own personal gratification. Please
stop cluttering this list with the resultant spurtings.

> >  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.
> 
> The GFDL should obviously be permited, anything else would be quite
> silly.

It's far from obvious to me why I should allow the BNP or
whoever to print updated copies of a manual and forbid recipients
from removing their manifesto from it, as FDL use would permit.

> And you can use the GPL if you would like to, just like with
> licensing your work under the GPL. [...]

Can you use the GPL alone? It's my understanding that would be
forbidden by the planned policy change.

If the FDL's not buggy, why do you refer to its problems in
another email today?
         (__) 
         (oo) 
   /------\/ 
  / |    ||   
 *  /\---/\ 
    ~~   ~~   
...."Have you mooed today?"...

-- 
MJ Ray - personal email, see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html
Work: http://www.ttllp.co.uk/  irc.oftc.net/slef  Jabber/SIP ask