Re: Anton's amendment
On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 05:17:24PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Suppose we have a case where a majority of the developers want to
> change the DFSG, but they don't have enough to win a 3:1 vote.
>
> All they need to do, if you are right, is proceed to declare that
> their change is really just an interpretation of whatever is already
> there. And, by hypothesis, they can present a claim that heck, a
> *majority* of developers say that their interpretation is certainly at
> least plausible (after all, they think it's *correct*).
>
> So, if you are right, the 3:1 supermajority requirement is entirely
> empty, because it is a trivial matter for people to circumvent it.
Who is to say that one interpretation is any more valid than the other?
To say that the DRM and transparent copies clauses violate the DFSG is
also an interpetation, because it's not explicit. So the same arguments
apply about circumventing the majority requirements.
Hamish
--
Hamish Moffatt VK3SB <hamish@debian.org> <hamish@cloud.net.au>
Reply to: