> IIUC, the argument stated is that Non-GNU Savannah packages might > some-day become GNU packages.
No, the point is more like it was expressed: for GNU packages to borrow any parts of code or documentation from other packages, the licensing must be compatible. That is a very weak claim, for one we require copyright assignments for GNU packages. If one can get that, changing the license of the documentation is not an issue. Secondly, to be able to borrow documentation, one needs to have very similar projects for it to be useful, often rewriting it anyway. Something we seldom do _within_ the GNU project. If we allow arbitrary copyleft licenses, the possibilities for official GNU software to use it will be very limited; generally, documentation under incompatible licenses will have to be written again, and it's much less fun than to rewrite programs. That is already severly limited by the requirement for a copyright assignment and other reasons. Free documentation is indeed important, but it is not so important that we should reject documentation simply because it is not under the GFDL.
