[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



On Thursday 19 January 2006 20:39, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Jan 2006, Christopher Martin wrote:
> > No, because as I wrote the whole point of the amendment is to make
> > officially acceptable the interpretation of the license which views
> > the license as flawed, but still DFSG-free. This amendment is in no
> > way arguing for any sort of exception or modification or suspension
> > of the DFSG.
>
> The issue here devolves into a question of interpretation; if we can
> decide to interpret the Foundation Documents in any way we want simply
> by a majority vote, the requirement to have changes to them meet a 3:1
> majority becomes rather pointless.

This is a real dilemma faced by all constitutions or similar charter 
documents. Unfortunately, all constitutions can be undermined by the 
reinterpretation of seemingly small details. But one person's "undermining" 
is another person's "upholding".

The important question here is one of legitimacy. Who exactly has the 
authority to determine these matters of interpretation? Specifically, who 
decides what is in accordance with the DFSG? The developers do, through 
GRs, if I understand correctly. Certainly nothing in my reading of the 
Constitution suggests that the Secretary has this power.

The Secretary seems to be adopting the view that anyone who disagrees with 
his interpretation of the GFDL is not holding a legitimate opinion. Given 
the length of the GFDL debates, the acrimony, and the number of developers 
who remain on both sides, this seems far, far too strong a stance for a 
Project officer to adopt (even if Manoj holds that view personally). Hence 
my complaint.

Cheers,
Christopher Martin

Attachment: pgp1mGqMuxLld.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: