Re: Anton's amendment
On Thu, 2 Feb 2006 12:39:52 +0200, Anton Zinoviev <email@example.com> 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
> 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 <firstname.lastname@example.org> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C