Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
Christopher Martin <chrsmrtn@debian.org> writes:
> It was my understanding that this is what the amendment was attempting to do
> - to establish a position statement stating that
> GFDL-minus-invariant-sections was problematic but still DFSG-free (and
> therefore acceptable in main). Is your point that the amendment wasn't
> sufficiently explicit?
No. I understood the amendment exactly as Manoj has characterized it:
it was an amendment to permit the GFDL in, whether or not it is
DFSG-free.
Reply to: