[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract

Christopher Martin <chrsmrtn@debian.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.

Reply to: