"submitter didn't know the difference. Perhaps, because he was focused on delivering quality product and didn't delve that deep into the terminology. This is a wrong attitude towards your allies"
"submitter didn't know the difference. Perhaps, because he was focused on delivering quality product and didn't delve that deep into the terminology. This is a wrong attitude towards your allies"
savannah.nongnu.org
Savannah Administration - Tasks: task #16630, Submission of MetronMG [Savannah]
Sheesh, the submitted package is explicitly licensed under the GPL, but apparently that was not good enough for it to count as "free software" because the words "open source" appear in its README.
"Savannah is a software forge for free software" was a poor choice of words. Absence of the "open source" label is not part of the free/libre software definition, but rather it's part of behavior that promotes the free/libre software philosophy, which Savannah also enforces.
https://savannah.nongnu.org/register/requirements.php
Thanks for the link! After reading through the requirements, I see the following, which is probably what led to the package's rejection:
So I suppose that it was a clearly stated rule that is indeed violated in the README. Still, a better response than:
Would have been:
It would only have required slightly more typing, and would have come across as far less hostile.