[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Social Contract GR's Affect on sarge

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.


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

Reply to: