[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract

Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>  I'm sorry, whether or not something meets the requirements of
>  the DFSG is not entirely a matter of opinion. While I agree there are
>  grey areas where it can be hard to determine whether or not something
>  is non-free, it is not my belief that the GFDL falls in that
>  category, and hence my ruling that in order to ship GFDL licenced
>  works in main one needs to modify the SC itself.

You must separate your personal certainty in the GFDL's non-freeness from 
your actions in the capacity of Project Secretary.

> It is my opinion that this is trying to legislate a fallacy.

It is not up to the Project Secretary to declare controversial licenses, 
over which many developers disagree, DFSG-free or not, which is precisely 
the power your decision arrogates. You may think the amendment 
fundamentally fallacious, but that's not your decision to make. The 
Secretary has some power to adjudicate issues of constitutional 
interpretation, but the DFSG is not the constitution. The Secretary is not 
charged with defending the purity of "main" with respect to the DFSG. A GR 
is the appropriate place to decide this issue, yet you have prejudged it by 
saddling the amendment with the supermajority requirement.

> I would be willing to listen to arguments why GFDL licensed
>  works without invariant sections are not DFSG free with an open
>  mind. However, my current reading of the situation is that they
>  indeed do not meet DFSG requirements.

You are entitled to this reading, but as Project Secretary you are not 
entitled to determine this for everyone else. As stated above, this is an 
issue which a GR can and should settle, not the Project Secretary.

Again, please consider rescinding the supermajority requirement for the 

Christopher Martin

(I'm subscribed to d-vote now, so no CCs required; before I only read the 
d-vote archive at regular intervals)

Attachment: pgpj1frAq1QBg.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: