Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 21:11:11 -0500, Christopher Martin
<chrsmrtn@debian.org> said:
> The important question here is one of legitimacy. Who exactly has
> the authority to determine these matters of interpretation?
> Specifically, who decides what is in accordance with the DFSG? The
> developers do, through GRs, if I understand correctly. Certainly
> nothing in my reading of the Constitution suggests that the
> Secretary has this power.
The secretary decides on the procedure of voting on a GR, and
the final form the ballot may take. The secretary arrives at these
decisions based on their best interpretation of the situation at
hand.
> The Secretary seems to be adopting the view that anyone who
> disagrees with his interpretation of the GFDL is not holding a
> legitimate opinion. Given the length of the GFDL debates, the
> acrimony, and the number of developers who remain on both sides,
> this seems far, far too strong a stance for a Project officer to
> adopt (even if Manoj holds that view personally). Hence my
> complaint.
Then hold a separate GR on whether or not the GFDL meets the
DFSG -- aj's proposal, which states the GFDL licenced documents do
not meet the DFSG is not subject to the 3:1 majority requirements. By
moving to have GFDL licensed works included in main ahead of a
determination of whether or not GFDL licensed works are free or not
means that you have to accept the secretaries interpretation of
"reasonable" arguments.
Please note that I am not sure of the correctness of deciding
by popular acclaim whether or not a licensed work meets the
DFSG. But it is certainly one way of doing things.
manoj
--
Be careful when a loop exits to the same place from side and bottom.
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Reply to: