Christopher Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
