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

Re: Anton's amendment

On Thu, 2 Feb 2006 12:39:52 +0200, Anton Zinoviev <anton@lml.bas.bg> said: 

> On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 03:24:16PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> I beg to differ. There is a reason the foundation docuyments have a
>> 3:1 modification requirement: If a simple majority were enough to
>> "interpret" codicils on a novel and unconvetional fashion, then
>> there is no point of the constitutional requirement for super
>> majority.

> The interpretation I proposed is not a novel and unconventional.  It
> is not novel because it represents notion for "free software" that
> is older that Debian.  It is not unconventional because it is
> widespread among the free software community.  I'd say that your
> interpretation is more unconventional than mine.

        It is a novel and unconventional reading of the foundation
 document. What third parties think about related things is immateriel.

> So far there is absolutely _no_ decision taken by Debian project
> that invalidates my interpretation.

        You are, of course, entitled to your opinion. But when we
 ratified "The license must allow modifications", we did take a

The CS Sage says: Seek new employment prior to the imposition of
performance penalties on your project.
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: