Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
Christopher Martin <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> On Thursday 19 January 2006 12:09, Adeodato Simó wrote:
>> However, I'm pretty sure that more than one Developer thinks the
>> proper interpretation would be:
>> (b) this amendment overrules debian-legal's assessment that certain
>> two clauses of the GFDL are non-free, and thus needs 1:1
> Right. To declare that the amendment would constitute a modification of a
> foundation document is to presuppose the very issue that this amendment
> seeks to clarify, namely, whether or not the GFDL-minus-invariant-sections
> is indeed non-free. If the amendment passes, then
> GFDL-minus-invariant-sections docs would not be considered non-free, and so
> could be allowed in main without any special dispensation. The amendment is
> not intended to declare that we should suspend the DFSG for the sake of
> expediency; such a proposal would indeed require a 3:1 supermajority.
> Rather, it simply promulgates the interpretation that the GFDL, minus
> invariant sections, while not perfect, is still DFSG-free.
Ummm, so how exactly does declaring an interpretation of the DFSG as the
one the project accepts constitute a modification? Are you telling me
that when a judge interprets a law to make a ruling, that law has been
changed in some way?
Captain Logic is not steering this tugboat.