Manoj Srivastava wrote: > I'm sorry, whether or not something meets the requirements of > the DFSG is not entirely a matter of opinion. While I agree there are > grey areas where it can be hard to determine whether or not something > is non-free, it is not my belief that the GFDL falls in that > category, and hence my ruling that in order to ship GFDL licenced > works in main one needs to modify the SC itself. You must separate your personal certainty in the GFDL's non-freeness from your actions in the capacity of Project Secretary. > It is my opinion that this is trying to legislate a fallacy. It is not up to the Project Secretary to declare controversial licenses, over which many developers disagree, DFSG-free or not, which is precisely the power your decision arrogates. You may think the amendment fundamentally fallacious, but that's not your decision to make. The Secretary has some power to adjudicate issues of constitutional interpretation, but the DFSG is not the constitution. The Secretary is not charged with defending the purity of "main" with respect to the DFSG. A GR is the appropriate place to decide this issue, yet you have prejudged it by saddling the amendment with the supermajority requirement. > I would be willing to listen to arguments why GFDL licensed > works without invariant sections are not DFSG free with an open > mind. However, my current reading of the situation is that they > indeed do not meet DFSG requirements. You are entitled to this reading, but as Project Secretary you are not entitled to determine this for everyone else. As stated above, this is an issue which a GR can and should settle, not the Project Secretary. Again, please consider rescinding the supermajority requirement for the amendment. Thanks, Christopher Martin (I'm subscribed to d-vote now, so no CCs required; before I only read the d-vote archive at regular intervals)
Attachment:
pgptFl1vu9l_L.pgp
Description: PGP signature