Re: GFDL position statement ballot invalid
On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 02:13:10PM +0000, Oliver Elphick wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-02-28 at 14:59 +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > Bah, the clause 3 is trying to change the perceived meaning of the DFSG, as
> > such it is a change of the DFSG in spirit even if it would be doubtful that
> > it would mean a modification of the text of the DFSG.
> > As such, it is logical that it needs a 3:1 super-majority.
> Nevertheless, no foundation document is actually being changed.
Well, one could consider that changing the interpretation of a fundation
document is indeed changing it. This will establish a precedent which you can
see as an annotation of the DFSG, or whatever they say in legalese.
But in any case, it is without doubt that it will change the spirit of the
DFSG, and as thus needs a 3:1 super-majority.