On Thursday 19 January 2006 20:39, Don Armstrong wrote: > On Thu, 19 Jan 2006, Christopher Martin wrote: > > 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. > > The issue here devolves into a question of interpretation; if we can > decide to interpret the Foundation Documents in any way we want simply > by a majority vote, the requirement to have changes to them meet a 3:1 > majority becomes rather pointless. This is a real dilemma faced by all constitutions or similar charter documents. Unfortunately, all constitutions can be undermined by the reinterpretation of seemingly small details. But one person's "undermining" is another person's "upholding". The important question here is one of legitimacy. Who exactly has the authority to determine these matters of interpretation? Specifically, who decides what is in accordance with the DFSG? The developers do, through GRs, if I understand correctly. Certainly nothing in my reading of the Constitution suggests that the Secretary has this power. The Secretary seems to be adopting the view that anyone who disagrees with his interpretation of the GFDL is not holding a legitimate opinion. Given the length of the GFDL debates, the acrimony, and the number of developers who remain on both sides, this seems far, far too strong a stance for a Project officer to adopt (even if Manoj holds that view personally). Hence my complaint. Cheers, Christopher Martin
Attachment:
pgpmvj9eJL6KK.pgp
Description: PGP signature