Christopher Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > 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 > > Right. To declare that the amendment would constitute a modification of a > foundation document is to presuppose the very issue that this amendment > seeks to clarify, namely, whether or not the GFDL-minus-invariant-sections > is indeed non-free. If the amendment passes, then > GFDL-minus-invariant-sections docs would not be considered non-free, and so > could be allowed in main without any special dispensation. The amendment is > not intended to declare that we should suspend the DFSG for the sake of > expediency; such a proposal would indeed require a 3:1 supermajority. > Rather, it simply promulgates the interpretation that the GFDL, minus > invariant sections, while not perfect, is still DFSG-free.
Ummm, so how exactly does declaring an interpretation of the DFSG as the one the project accepts constitute a modification? Are you telling me that when a judge interprets a law to make a ruling, that law has been changed in some way? -- Captain Logic is not steering this tugboat.