On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 03:24:16PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > > I beg to differ. There is a reason the foundation docuyments > have a 3:1 modification requirement: If a simple majority were > enough to "interpret" codicils on a novel and unconvetional fashion, > then there is no point of the constitutional requirement for super > majority.
The interpretation I proposed is not a novel and unconventional. It is not novel because it represents notion for "free software" that is older that Debian. It is not unconventional because it is widespread among the free software community. I'd say that your interpretation is more unconventional than mine. So far there is absolutely _no_ decision taken by Debian project that invalidates my interpretation. Anton Zinoviev -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
