Re: The Sourceless software in the kernel source GR
On Tue, 19 Sep 2006, Martin Schulze wrote:
> > On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 18:46:50 -0700, Don Armstrong <firstname.lastname@example.org> said:
> > > But just like the groundwork and foundation of a structure, the
> > > non-actionable content of a resolutions can contain information on
> > > how the actionable content is to be interpreted. As such, it is part
> > > of the resolution, and needs to be included with the content made
> > > available to voters.
> Umh, then I need to ask why the resolution is not clear enough so
> that it does not need the preamble to know in which way the author
> has intended its interpretation?
It should be, but I'm far from infallible, which is why I included
the entire text as part of the proposal.
> As Manoj pointed out already, courts look at the resolution when
> *interpreting* it, not at the preamble, so it seems pretty useles in
> that regard.
While I still disagree that courts are unable to look at a preamble to
guide their interpretation of a resolution, I have specifically
included those paragraphs in the text of the proposal to sidestep this
entire line of argument.
1: Indeed, its worse than that: I'm often totally incomprehensible.
"It's not Hollywood. War is real, war is primarily not about defeat or
victory, it is about death. I've seen thousands and thousands of dead
bodies. Do you think I want to have an academic debate on this
-- Robert Fisk