Savannah rejects a project because it uses GPL
Alfred M. Szmidt
ams at gnu.org
Sat Feb 25 11:25:00 UTC 2006
> > 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.)
Did I claim that you did? No. You implied it on the other hand.
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.
Only if you stop cluttering the list with abusrd lies. If you wish to
know what happened, please ask the Savannah hackers. You have
obviously not done so, and instead of doing this, you went on a
personal crusade without knowing what actually happened. This isn't
the first time you do this.
You wish to know what happened, so ask the people who made the
decision: The Savannah hackers. They don't bite, and are very nice.
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.
This is clearly written at http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-doc.html
> 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.
Please ask the Savannah hackers.
If the FDL's not buggy, why do you refer to its problems in another
Please stop claiming things I didn't even imply. You have on a
repeated basis invented claims. It is silly, please stop it. You
were answering to a sentence where I wrote something along the lines
of `The GFDL does not have the problems that you claim it to have'.
The GFDL does have problems, but none of which you claim it to have.
More information about the Discussion