Anthony DeRobertis wrote: > The Project essentially told us our conclusion — the GFDL is not free — > is wrong in the case where there are no invariant sections. The Project > did not tell us why. There are several ways we can take this: > > 1. The Project intends this to be a one-time thing, applying only to > the GFDL: No effect on future judgements of licenses is intended. > I don't believe this is a valid interpretation of the GR as that'd > require a 3:1 supermajority to achieve (just like Amendment B), > and the ballot option did not require that. I believe this is a perfectly valid interpretation of the GR. The GR made no statement on the DFSG-freeness of any license other than the GFDL, and I see no good reason why we should extrapolate it. Let those who desire more permissive interpretations argue those interpretations and/or pass GRs; let's not play devil's advocate and argue their points for them. > 2. The Project intends us to change how we interpret licences as they > believe we have come to an incorrect conclusion. I believe this is > the correct way to understand and act on the GR. I don't see how this can be read from the GR. A plurality of the Project has stated that the GFDL is DFSG-free. I don't believe we should take this as a reason to change our interpretations of other licenses as well, nor do I believe that we should attempt to guess the *intent* of the Project, particularly since such intent may vary greatly between various developers. To use the mathematical hyperbole: just because the project has legislated pi=3.14 doesn't mean we should start arguing e=2.72 and sqrt(2)=1.41 for them. - Josh Triplett
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature