Re: Social Contract GR's Affect on sarge
On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 04:35:20PM -0400, Travis Crump wrote:
> 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
Because the policy wasn't "we don't need to fix this ever", it was "we
won't fix this now, but will fix it later". There are plenty of things
in our release policy which the Social Contract doesn't mandate.
Colin Watson [email@example.com]