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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
