Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract

[Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au>]

On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 11:45:48PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le jeudi 09 f?vrier 2006 ? 23:19 +0100, Marco d'Itri a ?crit :
> > On Feb 09, Josselin Mouette <joss@debian.org> wrote:
> > > This was necessary only because the release manager believed the changes
> > > to be non-editorial. I cannot even understand an interpretation of the
> > > old wording that can lead us to accept non-free documentation into main.
> > This may be annoying for you, but it's a fact that there is an
> > interpretation of the old wording which has been used for years to
> > accept non-free documentation into main.
> Or maybe this is only something that has been invented a posteriori when
> people realized some documentation from the FSF, that was believed to be
> free because it is the FSF, had been accepted into main despite its
> license written by hordes of monkeys.

See the mail in -private entitled "social contract and documentation
policy" dated 2 Jul 1997 19:39:59 -0000, and realise that the GFDL came
out three years later in March 2000.

Cheers,
aj

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature