On Wednesday 01 February 2006 14:25, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > Anton Zinoviev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 07:44:58PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > >> On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 11:13:05AM -0700, Wesley J. Landaker wrote: > >> > Sure, it says it must permit modifications, but it doesn't way > >> > that it must permit ALL modifications. The way it reads, > >> > literally, could be interpreted as it must permit ALL > >> > modifcations, or as it must permit at least two modifications (so > >> > that "modifications" is plural). > >> > >> Are you seriously suggesting that a webserver which allows one to only > >> modify the name it advertizes and the path to the default > >> configuration file is Free? > > > > Nobody is suggesting that. The point is that DFSG allow many > > interpretations and the Debian developers have to decide which one is > > the correct one. > > But you have not explained how your amendment is an interpretation > rather than a modification of the DFSG. You cannot simply write > something new, and say "and this is an interpretation of the DFSG!" > It must actually *be* an interpretation, whether correct or not.
Perhaps Anton has not, but I have done my best to explain this in other emails. I haven't yet seen anyone explain how it is an *invalid* interpretation, other than by using hyberbole or saying that it violates the "spirit" of the DFSG as if that is a commonly known fact. I really see this as a push to kill a valid interpretation by forcing it to have a supermajority. I would feel the same way even if the tables were turned in what option was being made to meet 3:1. -- Wesley J. Landaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> OpenPGP FP: 4135 2A3B 4726 ACC5 9094 0097 F0A9 8A4C 4CD6 E3D2
pgpzM9VzwJcTn.pgp
Description: PGP signature
