On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 12:59:13 +0200, Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 04:03:15AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> ______________________________________________________________________
>>
>> Proposal C: Clarifies status of non-technical documents. Creates
>> Foundation Documents class which requires 3:1 majority to change
>> and includes _only_ the Social Contract, and *not* the DFSG.
> Int this case, what is the reason behind this. Is it because of the
> opinion that the DFSG is part of the Social Contract, or because it
> is felt that the DFSG is not a founding document, and that we may
> want to more easily change it.
> Maybe this would be made clear now, so, in case this is choosen, we
> don't have ambiguities later on.
There are definitely two camps about this. One camp, whose
views I subscribe to, believes that the juxtaposition is mere
happenstance; and that when the social contract talks about us
including a definition of what is free, we meant included in Debian
itself.
The other camp believes that the DFSG is a par of the social
contract, and can't be treated differently.
The fact that I consider them separate is fairly clear in
the variant I proposed (Proposal A), since I mention them
specifically.
You shall have to ask Branden, the author of variant C, to
clarify what he meant -- and if there is suggested wording clarifying
his position, I'll put it on the web page as well as the ballot.
manoj
waiting for the fiend
--
The trouble with the average family budget is that at the end of the
money there's too much month left.
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
