On Sun Dec 14 16:02, Ean Schuessler wrote: > > For gosh sakes man! Try to be polite! Any child can see that GFDL > invariants violate the DFSG because they cannot be modified. Concur. GFDL + invariants clearly need to change the DFSG since the DFSG doesn't allow things which can't be modified [DFSG3]. GFDL - invariants is equally clearly possible without changing the DFSG. Ergo, 3:1 for the former and simple majority for the latter. On Sun Dec 14 16:02, Josslin wrote: > > For the record, I think the Secretary's interpretation of the > > Constitution is > > perfectly correct. > > Whether it is correct or not is irrelevant here. The Secretary is > deciding this without justification, in an inconsistent way (similar > options get a different treatment), and without any thought for > following the constitution itself. I'm sorry, how is it not relevant? The secretary interprets the constitution [7.1.3]. If the interpretation is correct then he has followed the constitution. Choice 6 says "firmware in Debian does not have to come with source". DFSG2 says "The program must include source code". Please tell me how you can _possibly_ reconcile those two statements without modifying the DFSG and therefore requiring a super majority. Matt -- Matthew Johnson
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature