"Wesley J. Landaker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Precisely; the point of my whole e-mail was that you can never solve issues > about how to interpret the DFSG by legalistic semantic nitpicking on how > the sentences are written.
Suppose we have a case where a majority of the developers want to change the DFSG, but they don't have enough to win a 3:1 vote. All they need to do, if you are right, is proceed to declare that their change is really just an interpretation of whatever is already there. And, by hypothesis, they can present a claim that heck, a *majority* of developers say that their interpretation is certainly at least plausible (after all, they think it's *correct*). So, if you are right, the 3:1 supermajority requirement is entirely empty, because it is a trivial matter for people to circumvent it. > I think this is okay, I don't think either interpretation is out of the > realm of a good interpretation, but I don't think either side should be > crippled in this vote by an a priori assumption that one or the other > interpretation is "wrong" by some legalistic interpration of the DFSG. Nobody has, at all, even in the least even *presented* this supposed interpretation of the DFSG under which the GFDL passes. So I think we can dispense with the idea that it's a plausible interpretation, since it hasn't even been given. Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
