(please don't cc me on list messages)
On Thu, Nov 09, 2000 at 04:59:47PM -0800, C.M. Connelly wrote:
> AJT> I imagine that the declaration of independence has little
> AJT> legal force, unlike the constitution.
> AJT> In contrast, the social contract and the DFSG do affect
> AJT> our day to day workings, and are of more than historical
> AJT> interest. The Debian Manifesto seems a better analogy,
> AJT> to my mind.
> My point was that if the section on non-free software in the
> Social Contract was tweaked to remove specifics about how Debian
> will support non-free software, the Social Contract could qualify
> for untouchable manifesto status. Whether that would be desirable
> is an open question.
It makes more sense to me to allow the people governed by particular
rules (such as the social contract, the constitution, etc) to be able
to change those rules as they see fit, even if we don't see a reason
right now why we might ever (again) want to change them.
> In any case, what I was thinking of was that the U.S. Constitution
> is not amended in the same way that U.S. law is -- laws are
> generally changed by deleting, adding, and changing words; the
> Constitution is changed by adding new ``amendments'' that redefine
> or invalidate parts of the original text or previous amendments
> without changing that text.
AIUI, the Australian Constitution is amended by changing words, but it's
generally (frequently? usually? sometimes?) printed with both the original
and new phrasings concurrently, with the old form crossed out or the
new form underlined, or similar, so it's possible to see what's changed.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
``We reject: kings, presidents, and voting.
We believe in: rough consensus and working code.''
-- Dave Clark
Attachment:
pgpICb9HON1R6.pgp
Description: PGP signature