Re: Intent to mass-file bugs: FDL/incorrect copyright files
Brian Nelson <email@example.com> writes:
> But the changes to the SC were "editorial", and the consensus seems to
> be that everything in Debian is "software" anyway, so why doesn't the
> current SC mean exactly the same as the new one?
There were two ways of interpreting the old social contract,
apparently. I think one of them (the allow non-DFSG-free
documentation interpretation) was groundless, but apparently there
were many who thought it was correct.
So, given this practical uncertainty about the correct interpretation,
it was clarified. From my perspective, in which we have been
violating the Social Contract for years, it is merely editorial. But
it does still work a significant change, because it excludes the other
Regardless, you seem to be fighting a different battle. I don't
recall you complaining at the time we changed the social contract that
the changes were incorrectly labelled as editorial. The time for such
a complaint has long since passed.