Re: The Sourceless software in the kernel source GR
On Tue, 19 Sep 2006, Martin Schulze wrote:
> > On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 18:46:50 -0700, Don Armstrong <don@debian.org> said:
> > > But just like the groundwork and foundation of a structure, the
> > > non-actionable content of a resolutions can contain information on
> > > how the actionable content is to be interpreted. As such, it is part
> > > of the resolution, and needs to be included with the content made
> > > available to voters.
>
> Umh, then I need to ask why the resolution is not clear enough so
> that it does not need the preamble to know in which way the author
> has intended its interpretation?
It should be, but I'm far from infallible,[1] which is why I included
the entire text as part of the proposal.
> As Manoj pointed out already, courts look at the resolution when
> *interpreting* it, not at the preamble, so it seems pretty useles in
> that regard.
While I still disagree that courts are unable to look at a preamble to
guide their interpretation of a resolution, I have specifically
included those paragraphs in the text of the proposal to sidestep this
entire line of argument.
Don Armstrong
1: Indeed, its worse than that: I'm often totally incomprehensible.
--
"It's not Hollywood. War is real, war is primarily not about defeat or
victory, it is about death. I've seen thousands and thousands of dead
bodies. Do you think I want to have an academic debate on this
subject?"
-- Robert Fisk
http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu
Reply to: