Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 05:18:31PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Everyone has the job of interpreting the DFSG. I'm saying that if, in
> the opinion of the Secretary, an interpretation of the DFSG is
> tantamount to a reversal of part of it, then it requires a 3:1
> majority to pass.
> If the license is not DFSG-compliant, then a resolution to declare
> that it is so, is either a dead letter, or else works a rescinding of
> the DFSG to that extent.
Unfortunately things are not as clear-cut as you would like to claim.
You are of course assuming that there is some way of making an absolute
determination as to the DFSG-compliance of a license, when there is not.
Initially, we expect this determination to be made by individual
developers, as you have pointed out. Individuals' judgements may be
called into question by ftpmasters, who may ask debian-legal for
comments. If there is no consensus, then we have a vote. We have *no*
higher authority to determine the DFSG-compliance of a license than
such a vote. So your statement is meaningless.
The vote is not a means of rescinding the DFSG or SC, nor even of
contradicting them. It is the *only* means we have of determining
whether something is in compliance with them. If a majority say that
that is the case, then for our purposes, it is so.
I'll refrain from arguing about what might happen in the event of a
contradiction, as it's a pointless distraction at this juncture.
Cheers,
Nick
Reply to: