Hi Debian Secretary and Leader, At <http://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_001>, it lists the text of the amendments. However, for Choice 3 there is a paragraph at the end that is not part of the amendment, but is placed and formated such that it appears to be. I think this is very inappropriate and I urge you to correct this as soon as possible. Specifically, this part: > We do not think that this requirement of GPL makes GPL covered programs > non-free even though it can potentially make a GPL-covered program > undistributable. Its purpose is against misuse of patents. Similarly, we > do not think that GFDL covered documentation is non-free because of the > measures taken in the license against misuse of DRM-protected media. > > Since this amendment would require modification of a foundation document, > namely, the Social Contract, it requires a 3:1 majority to pass. DFSG > article 3 would need to be changed, or at least clarified. As it reads, > it states that licenses a work is available under must allow > modifications of the work. This is very misleading, as there is no line break, heading, or any other kind of formatting change or delineation that makes it clear this is comment from you the secretary than part of the original proposal. Also, this paragraph is redundant because there is a section just a few lines later called "Majority Requirement" where it already asserts this 3:1 requirement. I think this really needs to be cleared up, as it is very misleading and seems to imply that the _proposal itself_ stated that it needed a 3:1 majority and requires a DFSG change, which is completely opposite what the amendment actually states. Thanks. -- Wesley J. Landaker <wjl@icecavern.net> <xmpp:wjl@icecavern.net> OpenPGP FP: 4135 2A3B 4726 ACC5 9094 0097 F0A9 8A4C 4CD6 E3D2
Attachment:
pgpA3nRFQ2Hs8.pgp
Description: PGP signature