[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Hmm, it seems this was a bit premature. The Savannah admin who was > looking at my project registration wrote to me:
I think it was useful to post here (all times UTC): Wed 19:05 kickino decides that GPL-only is not allowed Wed 21:40 driconf application is cancelled Thu 17:04 first posting to debian-legal about this Fri 12:11 [EMAIL PROTECTED] asked about it and send suggestions Fri 17:09 Savannah sr #105140 asks for GPL-only projects to be OK again Fri 18:39 kickino corrects the driconf decision Fri 21:40 Beuc posts news item http://savannah.gnu.org/forum/forum.php?forum_id=4303 "we plan to ask new projects to release documentation under a license compatible with the GNU Free Documentation License." Fri 21:49 Beuc replies to sr #105140, saying GPL-only is allowed Presumably the sr wasn't the catalyst and others did similar things, but I wonder if any happened before you mentioned it in public? This problem is not solved, just deferred. Please comment to [email protected] about the terrible plan to require use of a GPL-incompatible licence. Many of us consider adware too high a price "to enlist commercial publishers in funding free documentation" (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-gfdl.html) It's devious to only ask new projects to use it. That's a divide-and-rule tactic used by the UK government for unpopular measures like student tuition fees: those who were best able to estimate the harm it causes were exempted from it, so fewer complained, some fearful that a redraft could remove the exemption. Thanks, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
