Re: Amendment: GFDL is compatible with DFSG
Raphael Hertzog <email@example.com> writes:
> I second the amendment proposed by Anton Zinoviev in
> I think that the whole body of Debian developers have their right to
> express how they interpret the GFDL and that we need to vote on the
> subject. This amendment being a regularly voiced opinion, it should
> definitely be on the ballot.
In that case, could someone please propose an amendment which captures the
*other* regularly voiced opinion, namely that GFDL without invarient
sections is DFSG-free but with invarient sections is not, and phrase that
in an appropriate form as an override of the decision of a delegate so
that we can be done with this and have all the options represented? Lots
of technical problems have shown up with the current amendment that tried
to do that and it clearly needs a revision in light of the discussion.
If we're going to put all the options on the ballot, let's go ahead and
put them *all* on the ballot so that no significant group of DDs can later
claim that their opinion wasn't represented by the choices.
Russ Allbery (firstname.lastname@example.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>