On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 08:49:43PM +0200, Frank K?ster 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. So, given how many people seem to just ignore what I say, there's not much point to this but what the hell: the above isn't a good representation: yes, the GFDL stuff was recognised as non-DFSG-free, no it wasn't considered a violation of the Social Contract because the SC specifically talked about "remaining free" and "software". I'm sorry you didn't accept that line of reasoning, but I'm insulted that you think I'd willfully violate the social contract. 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