Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
Adeodato Simó <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> * Debian Project Secretary [Thu, 19 Jan 2006 10:12:50 -0600]:
>> Since this requires a modification of a foundation document,
>> the amendment requires a 3:1 majority.
> I don't see why this _physical modification_ is necessary. I can admit
> that the secretary says "this amendment overrules the social contract,
> since it talks about putting non-free things in main, so it requires a
> 3:1 majority"; but if the amendment passes, and so the GR issues a
> statement that some GFDL documents will remain in main, I don't think
> explicit wording is needed _in_ the SC, at all.
I disagree - either the interpretation of the SC allows GFDL'ed
documents without invariant (et al) sections, then we don't need a 3:1
majority, or it doesn't - then we have to change it if we want to keep
Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer (teTeX)