Re: GR Proposal: GFDL statement
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Russ Allbery wrote:
> Well, that's a reason to second an amendment that says that the GFDL *is*
> DFSG-free, so that it's explicitly a choice, and so that a vote for more
> discussion is clearly not a vote for that position.
>
> However, what's kept me from seconding such a proposal for exactly this
> reason is that I keep seeing problems with how to phrase it, since just
> saying "it's DFSG-free" without addressing the contradictions between it
> and the DFSG isn't really a solution and results in a very unclear
> interpretation.
>
> I wonder if such a statement would essentially have to be a modification
> of the DFSG to add a special case for the GFDL.
In my opinion, as I already mentioned in -private, this is the case.
Otherwise any software, no matter how non-free, could conceivably be
voted into "main" by a General Resolution that received a simple
majority. So I think that an amendment to explicitly permit
GFDL-licensed materials in "main" would require a 3:1 supermajority to
pass, as stated in http://www.debian.org/devel/constitution Section 4.1,
bullet points 5.2 and 5.3.
I guess that the decision of whether to require a 3:1 supermajority or
only a normal majority on such an amendment would be left up to the
secretary?
- --
Kevin B. McCarty <kmccarty@princeton.edu> Physics Department
WWW: http://www.princeton.edu/~kmccarty/ Princeton University
GPG: public key ID 4F83C751 Princeton, NJ 08544
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFDxpsjfYxAIk+Dx1ERAvo8AKCpBr+Z5F4N3cqmJ1iAgZyLQ5XRjQCcDUEI
kq1K44bCaQ4DpSLd+ew+Fq4=
=p95r
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: