Re: The Sourceless software in the kernel source GR
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Either it is preambulatory material, or it is part of the
If it is preambulatory material, then it is part of the resolution.
*There* lies the crux of the disagreement.
(If it is not part of the resolution, it might be *supplementary* material,
or *explanatory* material, or *reference* material, or *advocacy* material,
> -- their lies the crux of the disagreement. I have no
> objection to including the full text of a resolution. I am not going
> to add other material not part of the resolution to the web page.
> This is not subject to debate any more. (However, this might just be
> a matter of semantics, lost now under accusations of gross and
> egregious abuse of power).
Yep, it's just semantics. You're using the wrong definition of preamble: a
nonstandard one which nobody else uses.
>> That is the state that <http://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_004>
>> was in last time I looked at it; anything not preceded by a number
>> had been elided, and each ballot option was prefaced by the
>> prejudicial statement that "[t]he actual text of the resolution is
>> as follows. Please note that this does not include preambles to the
>> resolutions, [...]", implying that preambles are not part of the
>> resolution and are not votable.
> I am going to reinstate that paragraph, for it is certainly
Actually, it's certainly false, as Branden Robinson has explained
with Supreme Court citations.
Nathanael Nerode <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Bush admitted to violating FISA and said he was proud of it.
So why isn't he in prison yet?...