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

Re: The Sourceless software in the kernel source GR

Martin Schulze <joey@infodrom.org> wrote:

>> On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 18:46:50 -0700, Don Armstrong <don@debian.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?  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.

As for german law, this is definitely wrong.  Courts primarily look at
the text, but the public documents produced in parliament during the
creation process do in fact count when in doubt.

Regards, Frank
Frank Küster
Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer (teTeX/TeXLive)

Reply to: