On Wednesday 01 February 2006 14:24, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > On Wed, 1 Feb 2006 11:13:05 -0700, Wesley J Landaker <wjl@icecavern.net> said: > > On Wednesday 01 February 2006 09:41, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > >> "The license must permit modifications". No if, and, or buts. So > >> no, I do not think that is actually true. > > > > Sure, it says it must permit modifications, but it doesn't way that > > it must permit ALL modifications. The way it reads, literally, could > > be interpreted as it must permit ALL modifcations, or as it must > > permit at least two modifications (so that "modifications" is > > plural). > > Nice hair splitting. But "The license must permit > modifications" would nominally be interpreted to mean modifications > are permitted. Period. So far, I am not swayed by this line of > argument. You missed my point. If you are saying that "The license must permit modifications" has one, and only one interpretation, and that that interpretation is "The license must permit any and all modifications", then you are really doing the hair splitting, because that's not what it said. It's a perfectly valid interpreation, but it's not the one-and-only possible one that meets the spirit of the Debian project. My argument is that it's an absolutely and completely valid interpretation--in the full spirit of the DFSG and the Debian project--of "The license must permit modifications" to say that it means instead, "The license must permit reasonable modification." If your really think my appeal to allowing developers to use their own common sense during this vote is hair splitting then I don't think we're communicating well. *sigh* > > I think it's completely appropriate for the developer body to > > determine how to apply those guidelines using their own common sense > > and gut feel, without resorting to grammatical nitpicking. So a vote > > on this doesn't require any changes to what the document says, nor > > does it change what the document means. It's merely showing what how > > majority of developers think the guideliens should be applied to the > > GFDL. > > I beg to differ. There is a reason the foundation docuyments > have a 3:1 modification requirement: If a simple majority were > enough to "interpret" codicils on a novel and unconvetional fashion, > then there is no point of the constitutional requirement for super > majority. Manoj, I really don't see how you can believe that this proposal is "novel and unconventional", but if you really, *honestly* believe that, and you are not pushing a 3:1 because of your personal views about the GFDL, I guess I understand your position. Anyway, I don't think I agree with your take on this proposal, but I do agree that you should do your job as secretary as honestly as and objectively as possible. If you are truely doing that then I support you even if I think you are wrong. =) -- Wesley J. Landaker <wjl@icecavern.net> <xmpp:wjl@icecavern.net> OpenPGP FP: 4135 2A3B 4726 ACC5 9094 0097 F0A9 8A4C 4CD6 E3D2
Attachment:
pgpfnSyXaPplG.pgp
Description: PGP signature