Re: Discussion - On proposal E (Transition Guide)
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: Discussion - On proposal E (Transition Guide)
- From: Nathanael Nerode <email@example.com>
- Date: Wed, 02 Jun 2004 21:08:01 -0400
- Message-id: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- References: <20040525180702.GA1164@khazad.dyndns.org>
Robert Millan wrote:
> I'm concerned about proposal E. I believe it essentialy means that any
> changes that are made to the DFSG or SC won't have any effect if they make
> them more strict, but they will have effect if they relax them. Is that
> the intended in "[..] for a limited time, Debian will not be compliant
> with the new Social Contract"?
> Seems like the use of the word "limited" is ambigous. Any amount of time
> is "limited" by a greater one.
> Any comments on this?
The US Supreme Court used this unfortunate definition when interpreting the
US Constitution to allow arbitrarily long copyright periods.
Please change it to read "a limited time, not more than XXX", whether XXX is
"two releases" or "two years" or whatever.
There are none so blind as those who will not see.