On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 08:35:19PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: > Christopher Martin wrote: > > > Therefore, no modification of the DFSG would be required after the passage > > of the amendment, since it would have been decided by the developers that > > there was no inconsistency. > > If a simple majority can yell, "there is no inconsistency" then the 3:1 > requirement has little meaning. I think it'd be reasonable to request > that people who believe [0] is wrong should produce reasoned arguments > against it; to the best of my knowledge (and memory, of course), no one > has done so.
Perhaps I'm missing something, but > [0] http://people.debian.org/~srivasta/Position_Statement.xhtml does not seem to specifically address why the DRM and transparent copies requirements violate the DFSG. I would like to know what the argument is, since it appears to be ok by the letter. Of course the spirit is also important but open to interpretation. Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
