Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 20:43:35 -0500, Christopher Martin <chrsmrtn@debian.org> said:
> 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.
As project secretary, I have to determine the best form of the
ballot for this GR. My determination is that the amendment requires a
3:1 super majority, and is based on my best analysis of the situation
before us.
>> 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.
Obviously, your course is now clear: start a process for a GR
that states that the GFDL licensed works without invariant sections
do not fall afoul of the DFSG -- which is a rather different topic
than stating we may include GFDL licensed works without invariant
sections in main, before determination that such works are indeed
free.
Unless such a determination is made, clearly, by the
developers, and can override the determination made by the delegates
of the project, the release team/ ftp masters, you are subject to the
interpretations of the delegates.
>> 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.
So start the GR. This is not it. This is a GR about a position
statement.
> Again, please consider rescinding the supermajority requirement for
> the amendment.
You know how to override the project secretary.
manoj
--
"It's a fine world, though rich in hardships at times." Augustus
McCrae
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Reply to: