> On Thu, Jun 15, 2000 at 01:34:20PM -0400, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 13, 2000 at 06:31:50PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> > > Obviously you have no problem with throwing out the social contract on a
> > > whim.
> >
> > Please explain to where the proposed GR mandates this.
> >
> > I see an amendement of its language, but no blanket repeal of the document.
>
> The GR proposes a fundamental shift in the social contract:
> it wants to emphasise free software at the expense of utility
> for some of our users. It's not a minor change.
The GR also seeks, intentionally or not, to establish a precedent that
the Social Contract can be changed by a simple majority(*). This, too,
is also a fundamental shift in the Social Contract.
The supporters of this amendment claim it is calling for the
strengthening of our committment to Free Software. I would hate to see
this precedent turned against them later and have a weakening of our
committment to Free Software pass through a simple GR.
(*) It's possible that this amendment could pass without a majority
voting for it. Unlikely, but possible. I hardly think that this
amendment would be a suitable "compromise" between "Do Nothing", "Keep
Talking" and Anthony Towns' alternative.
>
>
> Hamish
> --
> Hamish Moffatt VK3SB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
--
Buddha Buck [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Just as the strength of the Internet is chaos, so the strength of our
liberty depends upon the chaos and cacophony of the unfettered speech
the First Amendment protects." -- A.L.A. v. U.S. Dept. of Justice
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
