Re: Social Contract GR's Affect on sarge
On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 08:49:43PM +0200, Frank Küster wrote:
> Xavier Roche <rocheml@httrack.com> schrieb:
> > Yes, I was careless because of the vague GR title. But was I the only one ?
> > 80% of all DD were okay with this GR ?
> > More than 50% voting participation with "Status of the non-free section",
> > and only 20% with this one, which also has great consequences ?
>
> I didn't vote, and I would perhaps have voted if the title would have
> been different.
Ditto.
> However, I still think that it was only editorial changes, that the
> GFDL'ed stuff was non-free even before this GR, and that it was
> considered non-critical for sarge despite of this.
Before this GR, the social contract didn't explicitly forbid its
distribution as part of Debian: some people interpreted it to do so,
while others did not. Accordingly, it was possible to consider such
material non-critical. The GR "clarified" the SC to pick the more
restrictive interpretation explicitly, thereby removing any discretion
that was available under the other interpretation.
--
Colin Watson [cjwatson@flatline.org.uk]
Reply to: