Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 17:26:29 +0100, Adeodato Simó <firstname.lastname@example.org> said:
> * Debian Project Secretary [Thu, 19 Jan 2006 10:12:50 -0600]:
>> The fact that the license is buggy does not change the fact that
>> works licensed under it would violate the DFSG. Given that, any
>> resolution to allow these works to remain in Debian would require a
>> rider to be added to the SC, something of the form:
>> - Debian will remain 100% free
>> + Debian will remain 100% free, apart from works licensed under the
>> (the exact wording can be decided upon if the amendment passes).
>> 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
Umm, no. The social contract and the DFSG have stated the
goals of the project, and have been given prominent status on the web
site, and in other pronouncements. We hould not add codicils and
riders that alter the meaning of the SC and not modify the SC
document itself to record these modifications.
Try to divide your time evenly to keep others happy.
Manoj Srivastava <email@example.com> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C