Re: [Savannah-hackers] Re: freesoftware.fsf.org: the issue that will not die

[Bradley M. Kuhn]

Jaime E. Villate <address@hidden> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 11, 2002 at 04:49:31PM -0400, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
> > Mathieu Roy <address@hidden> wrote:
> > > Is savannah.nongnu.org possible?
> >
> > That is a good idea, too.  nongnu.org isn't taken.
>
> I like that name.

Let's see what RMS thinks; he should reply within 48 hours.

> > > It's misleading to have non-gnu project with gnu (or fsf, anyway) within
> > > their urls and email address. But savannah is ok, I think.
> >
> > I agree.  Then, we could rightly call the whole service "savannah", which
> > most people do anyway.
>
> Yes, at CERN the IT people insist on using savannah.cern.ch for the version of
> Savannah that we are implementing there. I haven't publicized that name yet
> because I wanted to avoid confusion with savannah.gnu.org, but if we accept
> the fact that people identify Savannah with the software rather than the site,
> then I guess savannah.cern.ch is OK. Do you agree?

It's fine by me.  Everyone has started calling the "software package that
is the GNU fork of the last-free sourceforge codebase" as simply
"savannah".  Given that's the name of the software package, it's
inevitable that people will do things like the CERN folks.


So, "savannah.to" and "savannah.nongnu.org" are the two front runners to
replace the name "freesoftware.fsf.org"?  Does anyone have serious
objections and/or preferences to either of them?


   -- bkuhn

pgpi2Ytl61X3f.pgp
Description: PGP signature