Re: Overriding vs Amending vs Position statement
Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> writes:
> Matthew Johnson <mjj29@debian.org> writes:
>
> > Well, where would you say that the following GRs would fit:
> >
> > http://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_001 ("GFDL w/o invariant sections is free", 1:1)
>
> Non-binding position statement. It doesn't really need to be binding
> since the people who were doing the work didn't think it contradicted
> the DFSG. That's the best use of project policy statements, I think:
> they're highly persuasive to the people doing the work.
And if someone doing the work is not persuaded by this?
What if one of the many who do *not* find that GR to be persuasive is in
the position to reject a package containing FDL-licensed work, and does
so on the basis that their interpretation of the DFSG and FDL mean that
the package is not free?
By your arguments earlier in this thread, it seems this person's
interpretation, though contradictory with the GR, is equally valid. The
GR is, you say, non-binding. So what is the point of going through the
GR process if it doesn't bind such a person to the decision?
--
\ “I think a good gift for the President would be a chocolate |
`\ revolver. And since he's so busy, you'd probably have to run up |
_o__) to him real quick and hand it to him.” —Jack Handey |
Ben Finney
Reply to: