Colin Watson wrote:
On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 08:49:43PM +0200, Frank Küster wrote: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.
By that reasoning, before the new GR, why would it be necessary to address the issue for sarge+1, wouldn't the same room for interpretation have existed? In other words, why were the GFDL bugs marked as sarge-ignore instead of just closed as invalid[or perhaps downgraded to wishlist]?
Description: OpenPGP digital signature