Re: GR proposal: GFDL with no Invariant Sections is free
Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> wrote:
> martin f krafft <madduck@debian.org> writes:
>> also sprach Fabian Fagerholm <fabbe@debian.org> [2006.01.23.2241 +0100]:
>
>>> After reading all the recent posts about the GFDL on debian-vote, I
>>> hereby propose the following General Resolution and ask for seconds.
>
>> I don't have the time these days to follow the entire discussion.
>> How does your proposal differ from Adeodato's?
>
> It doesn't launch into the whole project statement parts and it
> specifically says that it's intended to reverse a delegate decision about
> DFDG-freeness rather than leaving it unclear whether it's overriding the
> DFSG requirement.
>
> In other words, the differences are primarily technical (in my view), but
> the wording is clearer and less ambiguous about what it's trying to
> accomplish.
And it probably doesn't need a 3:1 supermajority, because it doesn't say
"We'll keep DFSG documents in", but instead "the DFSG (without invariant
sections) is not and never was non-free, the older delegates' decisions
were simply wrong".
Regards, Frank
--
Frank Küster
Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer (teTeX)
Reply to: