> * Marco Fioretti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [Feb 14. 2002 12:00]:
> > Sean wrote:
> >
> > > savannah is a FSF project and carries with it that baggage.
> >
> > Uh? which baggage, if I may ask? (interested for obvious reasons,
>
> Can you say: "Richard M. Stallman"? That alone is enough.
>
All right, RMS is not the easiest person to be near to, but I was
asking about the REAL difference in terms of use. And it goes without
saying that any choice is respectable, and everybody licenses and
developes as he believes is best!
The question remains, however. For example, I was not too convinced by
what SF asked to candidate projects.
After reading their terms of use I came out with the impression
that to host your project on SF you must not support/work on
"controversial projects". In other words, that you could not
host a project on SF if you also had your *private, external*
web site advocating, say, DeCSS. Of course, I might just have
completely misinterpreted legalese. I asked clarification to the
webmasters, and haven't received any answer yet, not even a
"learn English better, you moron!".
Eventually I went to savannah because I couldn't find anything
remotely resembling that kind of limitation there.
Again, I might have completely misread that paragraph, but I
was asking about objective differences in the two terms of use,
not to the fact that one is grandfathered by a zealot.
Ciao,
Marco Fioretti
RULE: Run Up2date Linux Everywhere
www.freesoftware.fsf.org/rule/
