On Wednesday 01 February 2006 18:53, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > On Wed, 1 Feb 2006 18:23:43 -0700, Wesley J Landaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > > Manoj, I really don't see how you can believe that this proposal is > > "novel and unconventional", but if you really, *honestly* believe > > that, and you are not pushing a 3:1 because of your personal views > > about the GFDL, I guess I understand your position. > > > > Anyway, I don't think I agree with your take on this proposal, but I > > do agree that you should do your job as secretary as honestly as and > > objectively as possible. If you are truely doing that then I support > > you even if I think you are wrong. =) > > My personal beliefs do not have any bearing on actions I takew > with my secretaries hat on, to the best of my ability to do so.
Manoj, I know this should be an implicit to give the project secretary, but I don't know you personally. Thanks for saying this--I respect that a lot. > I do believe that "The license must allof for modifications" > does mean that any modification of the work must be > permissible -- not just modifying whatever the author gives you > permission to modify. Well, to a large extent I agree with you--I certainly would prefer software with that property myself!--but I still feel that that's a question of interpretation, not of fact. Anyway, I won't argue any further about it; I've posted more than enough on this topic. I suppose if the Debian project at large wants this change enough, they'll jump through the 3:1 hoop. (I'm still not even sure what I'm going to vote for myself.) -- Wesley J. Landaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> OpenPGP FP: 4135 2A3B 4726 ACC5 9094 0097 F0A9 8A4C 4CD6 E3D2
pgpvj4aGgD5dO.pgp
Description: PGP signature
