If the intention of that policy is to promote license forward compatibility would it make sense to invite submitters to investigate changing to GPLv3+ rather than rejecting on these grounds and so avoiding the conversation?
Please let me know if I have misunderstood the reasoning for this requirement. Thanks. Corwin On Thu, Jan 27, 2022, 00:10 Ineiev <invalid.nore...@gnu.org> wrote: > Update of task #16105 (project administration): > > Status: None => Cancelled > > Assigned to: None => ineiev > > Open/Closed: Open => Closed > > > _______________________________________________________ > > Follow-up Comment #1: > > In your package, README.md says it's GPLv3-only. Savannah has a hosting > requirement that the licensing terms should be compatible with GPLv3 and > any > future version. > > Cancelling. > > _______________________________________________________ > > Reply to this item at: > > <https://savannah.nongnu.org/task/?16105> > > _______________________________________________ > Message sent via Savannah > https://savannah.nongnu.org/ > > >
