Re: The Sourceless software in the kernel source GR
On Mon, 18 Sep 2006, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 16:03:11 -0700, Steve Langasek <firstname.lastname@example.org> said:
> > On Mon, Sep 18, 2006 at 05:32:10PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >> Which is it, a preamble to the resolution, or the resolution
> >> itself?
> > It is a preamble, and a preamble is a votable component of a
> > resolution.
> Nope. The resolution is what ew resolve to do, and is the only
> actionable part; the preamble is something that lays down the
> groundwork, and is part of the support ensemble that lrsfd [rp[;r to
> sgree to resolve to do whatever.
But just like the groundwork and foundation of a structure, the
non-actionable content of a resolutions can contain information on how
the actionable content is to be interpreted. As such, it is part of
the resolution, and needs to be included with the content made
available to voters.
It's up to the proposer of a resolution and those who second the
resolution to determine what is the content of the resolution. No one
else has the power to determine that.
> The courts look at the GPL -- not the preamble to the GPL. When you
> derive a license from the GPL, you drop the preamble -- and you
> modify and rename the rest to create your own license.
The court is free to examine the preamble to the GPL if it so desires;
it's appropriate to do so especially in cases where the language of
the licence is not manifestly clear.
> Preambles are introductions to things and explanations of and
> rationales for stuff. But they are not the stuff itself.
They can be as much a part of a resolution as any other bit is.
Indeed, a proposer needs to be capable of making a resolution contain
anything they want to, from preambles to postambles to footnotes and
graphics. It may not be particularly sane of them and those who second
it to do so, but it's not the bailiwick of the Secretary to adjust the
content of a duly seconded resolution.
In the cases where what is the actual resolution is in doubt, the
Secretary can of course make their best guess, but when the proposers
and seconders inform the Secretary specifically what the resolution
is, they control. [Of course, the Secretary can make suggestions and
propose amendments, just like any other developer can.]
The most the Secretary can do is exert power under A.2.3 and declare
that an amendment belongs on a separate ballot; but that's not (yet?)
at issue here.
Personally, I think my choice in the mostest-superlative-computer wars
has to be the HP-48 series of calculators. They'll run almost
anything. And if they can't, while I'll just plug a Linux box into
the serial port and load up the HP-48 VT-100 emulator.
-- Jeff Dege, email@example.com