Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 08:35:19PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> Christopher Martin wrote:
> > Therefore, no modification of the DFSG would be required after the passage
> > of the amendment, since it would have been decided by the developers that
> > there was no inconsistency.
> If a simple majority can yell, "there is no inconsistency" then the 3:1
> requirement has little meaning. I think it'd be reasonable to request
> that people who believe  is wrong should produce reasoned arguments
> against it; to the best of my knowledge (and memory, of course), no one
> has done so.
Perhaps I'm missing something, but
>  http://people.debian.org/~srivasta/Position_Statement.xhtml
does not seem to specifically address why the DRM and transparent copies
requirements violate the DFSG. I would like to know what the argument
is, since it appears to be ok by the letter. Of course the spirit is
also important but open to interpretation.
Hamish Moffatt VK3SB <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org>