Google Code Hosting

Sam Liddicott sam at
Fri Oct 27 12:18:49 UTC 2006

* Alfred M. Szmidt wrote, On 27/10/06 12:56:
>    Also, I'd avoid Savannah and GNA for now, unless you know you are
>    happy with their policies (such as required early adoption of FDL,
>    or HTTPS-only).
> Which are perfectly fine.  Please refrain from spreading FUD.  The
> requirement for FDL wrt documentation is no different than the
> requirement for the GPL or a GPL compatible license when it comes to
> software
I think you just endorsed the fact of MJ Ray's claim, that FDL would be
required, - which he gives as the basis for his proclaimed avoidance of
Savannah and GNA (and also my avoidance).

I hardly see how this is FUD, or that you think it could be, given that
you just confirmed the fact.

Whether or not it "being no different than the requirement for the GPL
or a GPL compatable license when it comes to software" is a material
concern is a personal matter.

Your claim that because one accepts GPL (and friends) for software, one
therefore likes FDL for documentation; is concise but dubious.

Unless hosted projects are not required to use FDL for documentation you
must acknowledge that MJ Ray's warning is not FUD - even if you wish he
wouldn't say such things.  It would trouble me to find that you didn't
want him to say such things; I support a FSF where users make decisions
in the light of knowledge rather than dogma. Why should not users be
aware of the FDL requirement before they sign up for project hosting?


More information about the Discussion mailing list