On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 06:37:57PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > Nick Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > You are of course assuming that there is some way of making an absolute > > determination as to the DFSG-compliance of a license, when there is not. > > No, I'm not. I'm saying that when the Secretary makes a ballot, he > must make a determination as best as he can.
>From your previous mail: If the license is not DFSG-compliant, then a resolution to declare that it is so, is either a dead letter, or else works a rescinding of the DFSG to that extent. Certainly looks like you think that there is some absolute way to determine that the license is not DFSG-compliant to me. If there isn't, then the "if" in the first part of your sentence is never satisfied, and the rest is completely hypothetical. In actual fact, I'm sure there *are* cases where the situation is so blindingly obvious that we all agree completely unanimously that it is obvious that a license is not DFSG-compliant. But in those cases, it's hard to imagine why there might be a resolution declaring that it were DFSG-compliant. So your example is still completely hypothetical and irrelevant. Cheers, Nick -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]