Re: Social Contract GR's Affect on sarge
Anthony Towns wrote:
> 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,
Perhaps because it's been *debunked*? "remaining 100% free software"
includes "remaining software". That's how English works.
If I say that a racist, sexist club will "remain 100% white men", it does
not mean that the men will remain white and that black women will be
allowed in. It just plain doesn't.
Perhaps that analogy will convince some of the people who still doubt?
There are none so blind as those who will not see.