Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
Em Qui, 2006-02-09 às 21:18 -0500, Christopher Martin escreveu:
> To impose the 3:1 requirement requires, beforehand, a judgment concerning
> the DFSG.
And so to remove it... If it's a judgement for one side, it's a
judgement for the other...
> Since no one has found a Secretarial basis for that power, it
> follows that to arbitrarily impose 3:1 supermajorities is not proper.
Ok, let me give you some "Secretarial basis":
0) The formal documentations in Debian usually are raised from the
common practice.
a) The Debian Policy is built only using common practices.
b) The DFSG was build after knowing wich licenses Debian consider as
free.
So, on doubt with "written down" documents, you can revisit its origins
and the common practice that raised it.
1) No license (even before the DFSG exists) with this type of
restriction was accepted as free (Please, GPL 2c has absolutely nothing
to do with invariant sections).
2) This way, the proposed amendment open the way for a new type of
restriction, which was never accepted as free, and so causes a implicit
change to DFSG3.
> That the 3:1 bit is mentioned in the constitution is quite irrelevant.
Are you sure? I just explained it does changes DFSG3, and therefore, it
should *as the constitution says* require a 3:1 majority. The
constitution would be violated if manoj didn't apply that.
daniel
Reply to: