Savannah rejects a project because it uses GPL

[Alfred M. Szmidt]

   > >  So what would you call the expanded "credit" clause that seeks to
   > >  entice legacy publishers to use FDL rather than a free software
   > >  licence?
   > 
   > What do you mean?  What `credit' clause?

   Clause 4.

If you are going to quote the license, do it properly.  

   > I don't see any `credit' clause in the GFDL.

   Do you really see nothing requiring credit of the licensors?

No, I don't.  Try doing a search for the word.

   > I don't even see any clause that tries to `entice
   > legacy publishers to use the GFDL'. [...]

   That's always been one of the main motives for the FDL. See:
   "The GFDL is meant as a way to enlist commercial publishers [...]"
   - Richard Stallman, "Why publishers should use the GNU FDL",
   online at http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-gfdl.html

Once again, you are simply ignoring anything that was written and
making up things.  There is no _CLAUSE_ in the GFDL to entice anything
of this sort.  What the motive is, was or will be is totally
irrelevant!

Please, MJ, I once again ask you to actually read what is written.
I'm getting quite tired to pointing out such things to you, and it
seems that you are on purpose trying to misread everything in a light
that suits your agenda.

   >    > and has no `encyclopedia' problems,
   > 
   >    How could one include parts from the FDL'd Emacs manual in a FDL'd
   >    "Encyclopedia of GNU"? It looks like one must beg FSF's permission,
   >    as relying on a "fair dealing" defence would limit uses.
   > 
   > You simply include it, and follow the license.

   If one tried to include part of the Emacs manual in a work about GNU
   in general, one could not follow the licence: the GNU Manifesto and
   the GPL would be about the main topic, so no longer Secondary, so
   could not be included as Invariant, which is required by the licence.

Why are you making up absurd cases?  Have you actually read the
license? Specifically, the bits about modification?  

   > It seems that you haven't read the GFDL at all, maybe you should
   > do that before basing your arguments on cloudy opinions. [...]

   I have read the FDL closely, more than some @gnu it seems.

You haven't read it at all.  It is perfectly clear from the way you
are misreading everything one writes, so it is impossible that you
have actually read the GFDL closely.

   > >  I don't think that's a good example. Even today, many sites seem to
   > >  ignore the FDL's terms when modifying Wikipedia and the Wikipedia
   > >  FDL story includes questionable relicensing to remove invariant
   > >  sections. See near the end of
   > >  http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/05/msg00565.html by Barak
   > >  Pearlmutter: [...]
   > So you go about and quoting things from people who are simply
   > irrelevant.  Why can't you show a single specific case?  I don't see
   > Wikipedia getting burnt, I see Wikipedia thriving. [...]

   You see nothing wrong with a project leading arbitrarily relicensing
   a project that they hold no copyright assignments for? If so, we're
   probably never going to agree on an example and I'm surprised that
   someone @gnu doesn't see problems of relicensing without CAs.

Please, once again, back up your claims.  You are throwing claims back
and forth without a single proof.  This isn't the first time you do
this.  You also once again simply ignore what was written by me and
invent some fantasy scenario.

   > [...]  If it is so simple, you could atleast point me to one of
   > these `numerous FAQs', I'm not sure what they try to answer.

   http://people.debian.org/~srivasta/Position_Statement.html and
   http://home.twcny.rr.com/nerode/neroden/fdl.html for starters.

Both are full of errors, and both authors have misread the GFDL
complteley.

   > FAQ's aren't software after all,

   Some FAQs are software (some are even kept as programs, either in
   general-purpose languages or specialised ones like latex or PostScript.)

FAQ's are not software, a computer cannot run a FAQ.  Stop pretending
hat it can.  Are you really this ignorant of how a computer works?

   > and your claim is that the GFDL is `unusable for free software'.
   > So once again, I ask you for concrete examples.

   As an example, I suggest all FDL manuals, none of which are free
   software, whether programs or otherwise.

Since manuals are not software, they cannot be free software or
non-free software, they are neither.

   Here's the parse tree I intended:
     (((non-)(free software)) (manuals))

Ok.  Then the sentence makes even less sense, since manuals are not
software, they cannot be classifed as "non-free software", or "free
software".

   > People make mistakes, if one tries to fix them, then all is good.
   > Debian refuses to fix their mistakes by continued promotion of
   > non-free software, and the exclusion of free documentation.

   Debian does not promote non-free software. It just is on some
   debian mirrors, which is a similar situation to GNU mirrors.

Then please explain what this non-free directory on ftp.debian.org
contains.

   "If one tries to fix them, then all is good" yet you give debian
   developers no credit for trying to drop non-free regularly.

Once again you are trying to twist things that are written to
something totally different.  Please, stop it.  It is getting boring.

   Excluding so-called "free documentation" adware is a feature not a
   bug.  Free software needs manuals that are free software too.

Since manuals are not software, they cannot be `free software'.  What
part of this do you simply not wish to understand?

   > Debian does include non-free software.

   It's not in the distribution, it's not on the CDs.

It is in the distribution, and it has been in the distribution since
`bo' atleast.  That you simply ignore the fact that Debian is hosting
it, distributing the software, is something different.

   > It promotes its usage by
   > giving space to host it.  Even Fedora is a better bet when it comes to
   > completely free GNU/Linux systems from the looks.  That the Debian
   > community tries to brush this away with `Oh, but it isn't in the
   > _MAIN_ repository! So all is OK'.  What would you think about the GNU
   > project and the GNU system having a specific section hosting non-free
   > software?  I'm quite sure that you would think that would be
   > hypocritical, atleast I would.

   According to http://www.gnu.org/server/mirror.html#MirrorFTP
   the hub of the GNU mirror network (and so the equivalent of
   ftp-master.debian.org) is ftp.ibiblio.org, which hosts software
   far more proprietary than even non-free on debian mirrors.


   Yes, I do think it's hypocritical that some @gnu take such a hard
   line against debian while most of the GNU mirrors do the same.

   Why aren't you calling on GNU to stop promoting non-free software?

Where does the GNU project promote non-free software?  Please quote
line and verse.  You have been incapable of quoting anything up to
this point.

The GNU project, cannot control what mirrors host.  They can control
what they host.  Debian does host non-free software, just go and poke
in ftp.debian.org.  Now try to find non-free software on ftp.gnu.org.

Yet again you make absurd comparisons that have NOTHING to do with the
issue at hand, and have no relation to reality.  You are obviously
very confused to think that a mirror is the same place as ftp.gnu.org.

   > Considering the hostility one recives from the Debian community when
   > on tries to raise this, it might be a good thing for people to switch
   > to other systems, that respect users freedoms; like for example
   > UTUTO-e, BLAG or Dynebolic.

   I think you mean "effective freedoms". Some freedoms seem to be
   considered unnecessary by UTUTO-e.

Please back it up.

   BLAG's pretty good, although
   both it and Dynebolic seem to include software called "non-free"
   by RMS in the past[1].

`in the past', so it might have been removed; we don't know.  Comapre
this to Debian, which still includes non-free software.

   Considering the hostility one recieves from the GNU community when
   discussing manuals, one can see why others think it a good thing
   to switch to other licences.

What hostility? It is you who are making absurd claims, inventing
scenarios that are simply impossible to achive.  I have asked you
several times to produce a shred of evidence for your claims, you have
yet to come up with a single one.  They only hostility is from you,
and your inability to actually have a level headed discussion without
resorting to false statements.