Hi,
the text of the amendment says at its very end:
,
| Since this amendment would require modification of a foundation
| document, namely, the Social Contract, it requires a 3:1 majority to
| pass.
`
But AFAICS it does not propose a textual change to the SC, just a change
of its
* Frank Küster [Thu, 19 Jan 2006 11:41:19 +0100]:
Hi,
Hi. Just a clarification:
the text of the amendment says at its very end:
^
,
| Since this amendment would require modification of a foundation
| document, namely, the Social Contract, it requires a
On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 11:41:19 +0100, Frank Küster [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Hi, the text of the amendment says at its very end:
,
Since this amendment would require modification of a foundation
document, namely, the Social Contract, it requires a 3:1 majority
to pass.
`
But AFAICS
* Debian Project Secretary [Thu, 19 Jan 2006 10:12:50 -0600]:
The fact that the license is buggy does not change the fact
that works licensed under it would violate the DFSG. Given that, any
resolution to allow these works to remain in Debian would require a
rider to be added to
* Debian Project Secretary [Thu, 19 Jan 2006 10:12:50 -0600]:
On second thoughts...
The fact that the license is buggy does not change the fact
that works licensed under it would violate the DFSG.
The amendment intentionally talks only about what Debian is going to
do (allow
Debian Project Secretary [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The fact that the license is buggy does not change the fact
that works licensed under it would violate the DFSG. Given that, any
resolution to allow these works to remain in Debian would require a
rider to be added to the SC,
On Thursday 19 January 2006 12:09, Adeodato Simó wrote:
However, I'm pretty sure that more than one Developer thinks the
proper interpretation would be:
(b) this amendment overrules debian-legal's assessment that certain
two clauses of the GFDL are non-free, and thus needs 1:1
Le jeudi 19 janvier 2006 à 18:05 -0500, Christopher Martin a écrit :
Rather, it simply promulgates the interpretation that the GFDL, minus
invariant sections, while not perfect, is still DFSG-free.
But if this amendment passes, we would still have to modify the DFSG for
the sake of
On Thursday 19 January 2006 18:54, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le jeudi 19 janvier 2006 à 18:05 -0500, Christopher Martin a écrit :
Rather, it simply promulgates the interpretation that the GFDL, minus
invariant sections, while not perfect, is still DFSG-free.
But if this amendment passes, we
On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 17:53:20 +0100, Frank Küster [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
I think the text should rather be fixed before the vote.
I have no objection if people want to hammer out the wording a
priori.
manoj
--
Technology is dominated by those who manage what they do not
On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 17:26:29 +0100, Adeodato Simó [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
* Debian Project Secretary [Thu, 19 Jan 2006 10:12:50 -0600]:
The fact that the license is buggy does not change the fact that
works licensed under it would violate the DFSG. Given that, any
resolution to allow these
On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 18:05:08 -0500, Christopher Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
On Thursday 19 January 2006 12:09, Adeodato Simó wrote:
However, I'm pretty sure that more than one Developer thinks the
proper interpretation would be:
(b) this amendment overrules debian-legal's assessment
On Thu, 19 Jan 2006, Christopher Martin wrote:
No, because as I wrote the whole point of the amendment is to make
officially acceptable the interpretation of the license which views
the license as flawed, but still DFSG-free. This amendment is in no
way arguing for any sort of exception or
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
I'm sorry, whether or not something meets the requirements of
the DFSG is not entirely a matter of opinion. While I agree there are
grey areas where it can be hard to determine whether or not something
is non-free, it is not my belief that the GFDL falls in that
On Thursday 19 January 2006 20:39, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jan 2006, Christopher Martin wrote:
No, because as I wrote the whole point of the amendment is to make
officially acceptable the interpretation of the license which views
the license as flawed, but still DFSG-free. This
On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 21:11:11 -0500, Christopher Martin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
The important question here is one of legitimacy. Who exactly has
the authority to determine these matters of interpretation?
Specifically, who decides what is in accordance with the DFSG? The
developers do,
Christopher Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thursday 19 January 2006 20:39, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jan 2006, Christopher Martin wrote:
No, because as I wrote the whole point of the amendment is to make
officially acceptable the interpretation of the license which views
the
On Thursday 19 January 2006 21:27, Don Armstrong wrote:
The Secretary has the authority to adjudicate constitutional disputes
of interpretation under §7.1.2.[1] Since modifying the Foundation
Documents requires a modification to the constitution, it seems
reasonable that the secretary would
On Thursday 19 January 2006 21:38, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Obviously, your course is now clear: start a process for a GR
that states that the GFDL licensed works without invariant sections
do not fall afoul of the DFSG -- which is a rather different topic
than stating we may include
Brian Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I completely agree, and hereby question whether the secretary is capable
of being impartial in this case given his personal interests[1] in this
issue.
You may question it, but it doesn't affect the case.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Christopher Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It was my understanding that this is what the amendment was attempting to do
- to establish a position statement stating that
GFDL-minus-invariant-sections was problematic but still DFSG-free (and
therefore acceptable in main). Is your point
Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Brian Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I completely agree, and hereby question whether the secretary is capable
of being impartial in this case given his personal interests[1] in this
issue.
You may question it, but it doesn't affect the case.
On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 22:18:15 -0500, Christopher Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
On Thursday 19 January 2006 21:27, Don Armstrong wrote:
The Secretary has the authority to adjudicate constitutional
disputes of interpretation under §7.1.2.[1] Since modifying the
Foundation Documents requires a
On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 18:53:16 -0800, Brian Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
I completely agree, and hereby question whether the secretary is
capable of being impartial in this case given his personal
interests[1] in this issue.
[1] http://people.debian.org/~srivasta/Position_Statement.xhtml
On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 22:20:32 -0500, Christopher Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
On Thursday 19 January 2006 21:38, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Obviously, your course is now clear: start a process for a GR that
states that the GFDL licensed works without invariant sections do
not fall afoul of
Brian Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Brian Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I completely agree, and hereby question whether the secretary is capable
of being impartial in this case given his personal interests[1] in this
issue.
You may
26 matches
Mail list logo
