* 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 invariant-less in main"), which is what most people from outside are interested in hearing anyway, and does not talk about what needs overruling to achieve that. It seems, by my reading of the Constitution, that it's the task of the Secretary to determine who is being overruled and thus what majority is needed. And the Secretary's opinion is: (a) this amendment overrules the Social Contract by putting non-free bits in main, and thus needs 3:1 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 How this gets handled, that I don't know, but I can imagine. Cheers, -- Adeodato Simó dato at net.com.org.es Debian Developer adeodato at debian.org Guy: My dad made my mom have a cesarean when she had my little brother. He wanted to make sure he was born in the 1986 tax year so he could get another tax credit. -- http://www.overheardinnewyork.com/archives/002968.html -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]