Re: A possible approach in "solving" the FDL problem
On Wednesday, Aug 13, 2003, at 03:17 US/Eastern, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Tue, Aug 12, 2003 at 07:51:56PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
Because this isn't the forum for discussing the removal of non-free?
And
because the discussion about removing non-free has to wait until the
shelved[0] amendment about changing founding documents, which was/is
waiting for the now-completed voting amendment?
Manoj's amendment wasn't just about "changing founding documents"; it
introduced the concept, which you won't find in the current version of
the Constitution (or any previous draft).
I agree with you. However, the secretary at the time determined that
"founding documents" had magical super powers[0], and the constitution
says that the secretary gets to interpret the thing, so...
And, AFAIK, there were never a general resolution to overrule the
secretary, so his decision, wrong as it may be, stands.
From a Constitutional perspective, the Social Contract and DFSG are no
different than any other nontechnical document the Project might issue
under 4.1.5 and in fact are specifically the things Ian Jackson had in
mind when he wrote that clause of the Constitution.
I'm sure that's true, especially since it even mentions documents
relating to our definition of free software.
However, we're getting off-topic for -legal and more into -project
territory.
Agreed. Only bcc'd to -legal.
PS: Does the constitution even say we have to follow the social
contract?
[0] Of the constitution-overriding type
Reply to: