Re: Amendment: GFDL is compatible with DFSG
On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 12:13:03AM -0600, Peter Samuelson wrote:
> [Wouter Verhelst]
> > I will _not_ second this proposal. Moreover, I would like to ask any
> > Debian Developer who's thinking of doing a second to consider what it
> > would imply.
>
> Seconding doesn't mean voting for.
I know that. However, I have the that Anton proposed this amendment
because he didn't see the arguments against it earlier, and am afraid
that many people would feel the same way as he does. I don't think
having this on our ballot would be a good thing.
That being said, of course if the amendment would make it onto the
ballot, then there's nothing I can do about that; but I thought it was
necessary to try and prevent that.
[...]
> In other words, if this amendment does get on the ballot, the spectre
> of "invariant sections are just fine" should go away once and for all.
People who think that way will probably vote for 'Further Discussion' if
this option does not make it onto the ballot. That's what that option is
for.
--
.../ -/ ---/ .--./ / .--/ .-/ .../ -/ ../ -./ --./ / -.--/ ---/ ..-/ .-./ / -/
../ --/ ./ / .--/ ../ -/ ..../ / -../ ./ -.-./ ---/ -../ ../ -./ --./ / --/
-.--/ / .../ ../ --./ -./ .-/ -/ ..-/ .-./ ./ .-.-.-/ / --/ ---/ .-./ .../ ./ /
../ .../ / ---/ ..-/ -/ -../ .-/ -/ ./ -../ / -/ ./ -.-./ ..../ -./ ---/ .-../
---/ --./ -.--/ / .-/ -./ -.--/ .--/ .-/ -.--/ .-.-.-/ / ...-.-/
Reply to: