Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 08:35:19PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> Christopher Martin wrote:
>
> > Therefore, no modification of the DFSG would be required after the passage
> > of the amendment, since it would have been decided by the developers that
> > there was no inconsistency.
>
> If a simple majority can yell, "there is no inconsistency" then the 3:1
> requirement has little meaning. I think it'd be reasonable to request
> that people who believe [0] is wrong should produce reasoned arguments
> against it; to the best of my knowledge (and memory, of course), no one
> has done so.
Perhaps I'm missing something, but
> [0] http://people.debian.org/~srivasta/Position_Statement.xhtml
does not seem to specifically address why the DRM and transparent copies
requirements violate the DFSG. I would like to know what the argument
is, since it appears to be ok by the letter. Of course the spirit is
also important but open to interpretation.
Hamish
--
Hamish Moffatt VK3SB <hamish@debian.org> <hamish@cloud.net.au>
Reply to: