| Brian Nelson 2006-01-19, 8:50 pm |
| Christopher Martin <chrsmrtn@debian.org> writes:
> On Thursday 19 January 2006 12:09, Adeodato Sim=F3 wrote:
>
> Right. To declare that the amendment would constitute a modification of a=
=20
> foundation document is to presuppose the very issue that this amendment=20
> seeks to clarify, namely, whether or not the GFDL-minus-invariant-section=
s=20
> is indeed non-free. If the amendment passes, then=20
> GFDL-minus-invariant-sections docs would not be considered non-free, and =
so=20
> could be allowed in main without any special dispensation. The amendment =
is=20
> not intended to declare that we should suspend the DFSG for the sake of=20
> expediency; such a proposal would indeed require a 3:1 supermajority.=20
> Rather, it simply promulgates the interpretation that the GFDL, minus=20
> invariant sections, while not perfect, is still DFSG-free.
Ummm, so how exactly does declaring an interpretation of the DFSG as the
one the project accepts constitute a modification? Are you telling me
that when a judge interprets a law to make a ruling, that law has been
changed in some way?
--=20
Captain Logic is not steering this tugboat.
|