Re: DFSG, GFDL, and position statementsd
On Mon, Jan 30, 2006 at 01:47:02PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> If the 3:1 requirement is to mean anything, it must mean that things
> which explicitly *or implicitly* modify foundation documents must
> receive a 3:1 majority. It certainly cannot be limited only to things
> which explicitly modify the text.
How can we measure "implicitly"? Anything that is not explicit is
obviously open to interpretation. It seems that the GFDL's problematic
clauses, other than invariant sections, don't explicitly violate the
DFSG.
Hence we just need to choose our official interpretation, unless you
want to modify the text to make it explicit (one way or the other other).
Declaring our interpretation doesn't mean modifying the text, and
doesn't need 3:1.
Hamish
--
Hamish Moffatt VK3SB <hamish@debian.org> <hamish@cloud.net.au>
Reply to: