-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Russ Allbery wrote:
> Well, that's a reason to second an amendment that says that the GFDL *is* > DFSG-free, so that it's explicitly a choice, and so that a vote for more > discussion is clearly not a vote for that position. > > However, what's kept me from seconding such a proposal for exactly this > reason is that I keep seeing problems with how to phrase it, since just > saying "it's DFSG-free" without addressing the contradictions between it > and the DFSG isn't really a solution and results in a very unclear > interpretation. > > I wonder if such a statement would essentially have to be a modification > of the DFSG to add a special case for the GFDL. In my opinion, as I already mentioned in -private, this is the case. Otherwise any software, no matter how non-free, could conceivably be voted into "main" by a General Resolution that received a simple majority. So I think that an amendment to explicitly permit GFDL-licensed materials in "main" would require a 3:1 supermajority to pass, as stated in http://www.debian.org/devel/constitution Section 4.1, bullet points 5.2 and 5.3. I guess that the decision of whether to require a 3:1 supermajority or only a normal majority on such an amendment would be left up to the secretary? - -- Kevin B. McCarty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Physics Department WWW: http://www.princeton.edu/~kmccarty/ Princeton University GPG: public key ID 4F83C751 Princeton, NJ 08544 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFDxpsjfYxAIk+Dx1ERAvo8AKCpBr+Z5F4N3cqmJ1iAgZyLQ5XRjQCcDUEI kq1K44bCaQ4DpSLd+ew+Fq4= =p95r -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
