Re: NEW handling: About rejects, and kernels

[Henning Makholm <henning@makholm.net>]

Scripsit Andreas Barth <aba@not.so.argh.org>
> * Henning Makholm (henning@makholm.net) [050326 00:55]:
>> Scripsit md@Linux.IT (Marco d'Itri)

>> > And one of the reasons for which licensing for documentation has not
>> > been discussed is that most people were not aware of the scope of the
>> > "editorial" changes, so there was no reason to discuss anything.

>> You can keep repeating that lie from now to eternity; it will not
>> cause it to become true.

> Sorry, Henning, but actually only very few people realized that these
> changes were intended to change ftp-masters behaviour.

You are changing the subject.

Marco's claim is that "people was not aware" that the changes was
intended to put an end to the ALREADY EXISTING recurring discussions
about what we mean by "100% free software"

The only one who was aware that the outcome would change the release
manager's position wrt. freedom bugs in sarge seems to have been the
release manager himself. But that does not change the fact that it was
common knowledge that the amendment was intended to end the
uncertainty about the meaning of "100% free software".

-- 
Henning Makholm   "And here we could talk about the Plato's Cave thing for a
                while---the Veg-O-Matic of metaphors---it slices! it dices!"