Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 06:37:57PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Nick Phillips <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > You are of course assuming that there is some way of making an absolute
> > determination as to the DFSG-compliance of a license, when there is not.
> No, I'm not. I'm saying that when the Secretary makes a ballot, he
> must make a determination as best as he can.
>From your previous mail:
If the license is not DFSG-compliant, then a resolution to declare
that it is so, is either a dead letter, or else works a rescinding of
the DFSG to that extent.
Certainly looks like you think that there is some absolute way to
determine that the license is not DFSG-compliant to me. If there
isn't, then the "if" in the first part of your sentence is never
satisfied, and the rest is completely hypothetical.
In actual fact, I'm sure there *are* cases where the situation is so
blindingly obvious that we all agree completely unanimously that it is
obvious that a license is not DFSG-compliant. But in those cases, it's
hard to imagine why there might be a resolution declaring that it were
DFSG-compliant. So your example is still completely hypothetical and