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

[Thomas Bushnell BSG <tb@becket.net>]

md@Linux.IT (Marco d'Itri) writes:

> On Feb 09, Thomas Bushnell BSG <tb@becket.net> wrote:
>
>> > 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.

>> How is this relevant?

> It shows that there was a widely accepted meaning of what "software" is
> in the context of the DFSG, so the change was not "editorial".

And how is this relevant?  Please see the subject line.