Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > martin f krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> also sprach Fabian Fagerholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.01.23.2241 +0100]: > >>> After reading all the recent posts about the GFDL on debian-vote, I >>> hereby propose the following General Resolution and ask for seconds. > >> I don't have the time these days to follow the entire discussion. >> How does your proposal differ from Adeodato's? > > It doesn't launch into the whole project statement parts and it > specifically says that it's intended to reverse a delegate decision about > DFDG-freeness rather than leaving it unclear whether it's overriding the > DFSG requirement. > > In other words, the differences are primarily technical (in my view), but > the wording is clearer and less ambiguous about what it's trying to > accomplish.
And it probably doesn't need a 3:1 supermajority, because it doesn't say "We'll keep DFSG documents in", but instead "the DFSG (without invariant sections) is not and never was non-free, the older delegates' decisions were simply wrong". Regards, Frank -- Frank Küster Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich Debian Developer (teTeX)