Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
* Debian Project Secretary [Thu, 19 Jan 2006 10:12:50 -0600]:
On second thoughts...
> The fact that the license is buggy does not change the fact
> that works licensed under it would violate the DFSG.
The amendment intentionally talks only about what Debian is going to
do ("allow invariant-less in main"), which is what most people from
outside are interested in hearing anyway, and does not talk about what
needs overruling to achieve that.
It seems, by my reading of the Constitution, that it's the task of the
Secretary to determine who is being overruled and thus what majority
is needed. And the Secretary's opinion is:
(a) this amendment overrules the Social Contract by putting non-free
bits in main, and thus needs 3:1
However, I'm pretty sure that more than one Developer thinks the
proper interpretation would be:
(b) this amendment overrules debian-legal's assessment that certain
two clauses of the GFDL are non-free, and thus needs 1:1
How this gets handled, that I don't know, but I can imagine.
Cheers,
--
Adeodato Simó dato at net.com.org.es
Debian Developer adeodato at debian.org
Guy: My dad made my mom have a cesarean when she had my little brother.
He wanted to make sure he was born in the 1986 tax year so he could get
another tax credit.
-- http://www.overheardinnewyork.com/archives/002968.html
Reply to: