On Thursday 19 January 2006 18:54, Josselin Mouette wrote: > Le jeudi 19 janvier 2006 à 18:05 -0500, Christopher Martin a écrit : > > Rather, it simply promulgates the interpretation that the GFDL, minus > > invariant sections, while not perfect, is still DFSG-free. > > But if this amendment passes, we would still have to modify the DFSG for > the sake of consistency. No, because as I wrote the whole point of the amendment is to make officially acceptable the interpretation of the license which views the license as flawed, but still DFSG-free. This amendment is in no way arguing for any sort of exception or modification or suspension of the DFSG. Therefore, no modification of the DFSG would be required after the passage of the amendment, since it would have been decided by the developers that there was no inconsistency. If you personally disagree with this, and believe that the GFDL, even without invariant sections, is inconsistent with the DFSG, then you may vote against the amendment. My above post was not intended to persuade the developers that they should vote for the amendment. Rather, it was attempting the clarify the proper status of the amendment, and therefore to correct the requirements for passage which the Secretary seems to have put upon it. Cheers, Christopher Martin
Attachment:
pgpwfUpxdnfn_.pgp
Description: PGP signature