On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 11:42:58AM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote: > I fail to see how the meaning of section 1 has changed. Even the release > manager agreed that the previous meaning was the same, as he stated that > the allowance for non-free documentation was just an exception for > sarge. I really despise people claiming to speak for me when they don't know what I think. I don't think the previous social contract required us to apply the DFSG to either documentation or data. Not everything that's unacceptable violates the social contract, but every that violates the social contract is unacceptable to release. > I understand the decision, but linking it with the GR is rather > abusive. It was the stated purpose of the GR to refute the above interpretation. I don't know why you would claim that it's abusive to accept that. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/> Don't assume I speak for anyone but myself. GPG signed mail preferred. Protect Open Source in Australia from over-reaching changes to IP law http://www.petitiononline.com/auftaip/ & http://www.linux.org.au/fta/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature