Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract

[Frank Küster]

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 meaning, or interpretation or whatever.  I have a couple of
questions about this:

- Has this been done previously?  If yes, where can I find a collection
  of all decisions that have thus "changed" the SC?

- Shouldn't we add a sentence to the SC, something like "In a couple of
  cases, the interpretation of this Social Contract or how it should be
  spelled out in technical details was controversial among the project,
  and votes have been taken.  The results of these votes are at
  "? 


As for the intention of the amendment, it seems to me that it relies
heavily on the assumption that the excempted clauses are simply bugs of
the license text and not the actual intention.  Given how bad
communication with the FSF was wrt to the GFDL, I doubt that we can sure
about this...

Regards, Frank
-- 
Frank Küster
Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer (teTeX)

Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract

[Adeodato Simó]

* 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 3:1 majority to
> |  pass.
> `

  As can be inferred by reading the original text amendment [1], the
  sentence quoted above was added by the Secretary (it was his duty to
  do so, if he understood that such majority requirement was applicable).

[1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2006/01/msg00060.html

  Cheers,

-- 
Adeodato Simó dato at net.com.org.es
Debian Developer  adeodato at debian.org
 
As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand.
-- Josh Billings


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract

[Debian Project Secretary]

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 it does not propose a textual change to the SC, just a
> change of its meaning, or interpretation or whatever.

I am afraid I was responsible for that rider. I should
 apologize for not sending a clarification earlier, but I was
 inadvertently away from my keyboard since my laptop's graphics card
 died just as I was going off on a business trip


> I have a couple of questions about this:

> - Has this been done previously?  If yes, where can I find a
>   collection of all decisions that have thus "changed" the SC?

Err, we have had two GR's that changed the SC -- the so called
 "editorial changes" GR, and the GR that deferred the changes for
 Sarge.  But in each case we followed through and changed the text of
 the SC.

> - Shouldn't we add a sentence to the SC, something like "In a couple
>   of cases, the interpretation of this Social Contract or how it
>   should be spelled out in technical details was controversial among
>   the project, and votes have been taken.  The results of these
>   votes are at hyperlink> "?

> As for the intention of the amendment, it seems to me that it relies
> heavily on the assumption that the excempted clauses are simply bugs
> of the license text and not the actual intention.  Given how bad
> communication with the FSF was wrt to the GFDL, I doubt that we can
> sure about this...

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, something of the form:
- Debian will remain 100% free
+ Debian will remain 100% free, apart from works licensed under the GFDL
   (the exact wording can be decided upon if the amendment passes).

Since this requires a modification of a foundation document,
 the amendment requires a 3:1 majority.

manoj
-- 
signal(i, SIG_DFL); /* crunch, crunch, crunch */ Larry Wall in doarg.c
From the perl source code
Debian Project Secretarty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C


pgpe5rgxPAhjD.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract

[Adeodato Simó]

* 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 the SC, something of the form:
> - Debian will remain 100% free
> + Debian will remain 100% free, apart from works licensed under the GFDL
>(the exact wording can be decided upon if the amendment passes).

> Since this requires a modification of a foundation document,
>  the amendment requires a 3:1 majority.

  I don't see why this _physical modification_ is necessary. I can admit
  that the secretary says "this amendment overrules the social contract,
  since it talks about putting non-free things in main, so it requires a
  3:1 majority"; but if the amendment passes, and so the GR issues a
  statement that some GFDL documents will remain in main, I don't think
  explicit wording is needed _in_ the SC, at all.

  Or so.

-- 
Adeodato Simó dato at net.com.org.es
Debian Developer  adeodato at debian.org
 
Arguing with an engineer is like wrestling with a pig in mud: after a
while, you realize the pig is enjoying it.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract

[Frank Küster]

Adeodato Simó <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> * Debian Project Secretary [Thu, 19 Jan 2006 10:12:50 -0600]:
>
>> Since this requires a modification of a foundation document,
>>  the amendment requires a 3:1 majority.
>
>   I don't see why this _physical modification_ is necessary. I can admit
>   that the secretary says "this amendment overrules the social contract,
>   since it talks about putting non-free things in main, so it requires a
>   3:1 majority"; but if the amendment passes, and so the GR issues a
>   statement that some GFDL documents will remain in main, I don't think
>   explicit wording is needed _in_ the SC, at all.

I disagree - either the interpretation of the SC allows GFDL'ed
documents without invariant (et al) sections, then we don't need a 3:1
majority, or it doesn't - then we have to change it if we want to keep
our promises.

Regards, Frank
-- 
Frank Küster
Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer (teTeX)

Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract

[Adeodato Simó]

* 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]

Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract

[Frank Küster]

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, something of the form:
> - Debian will remain 100% free
> + Debian will remain 100% free, apart from works licensed under the GFDL
>(the exact wording can be decided upon if the amendment passes).
>
> Since this requires a modification of a foundation document,
>  the amendment requires a 3:1 majority.

I think the text should rather be fixed before the vote.  

Regards, Frank
-- 
Frank Küster
Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer (teTeX)

Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract

[Christopher Martin]

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.

No GR has declared the GFDL-minus-invariant-sections to be non-free. The GRs 
only decided to extend the DFSG to all of Debian, and then to postpone the 
application of this rule until after Sarge. The GFDL (with or without 
invariant sections) has been declared non-free with much controversy only 
by a very small set of developers, largely active on debian-legal, a body 
with no constitutional standing. While the Project finds it expedient to 
respect the general debian-legal consensus on most issues to avoid endless 
GRs on every subject, where there is a strong division of opinion within 
the developer body, or the decision will have important consequences, a GR 
to establish a license's status within the framework of the foundation 
documents seems wholly appropriate.

The Project Secretary would be overstepping his or her authority to declare 
the interpretation of the license being proposed to be fundamentally in 
violation of the foundation documents _prior_ to any vote on the subject. 
He or she may hold a strong personal view on the matter, but cannot impose 
that view on the general shape of the vote.

If the Secretary views the amendment as insufficiently clear as to what it 
is attempting to establish, then he or she can always request 
clarification.

Cheers,
Christopher Martin


pgpvqEvCTdkYZ.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract

[Josselin Mouette]

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 consistency.
-- 
 .''`.   Josselin Mouette/\./\
: :' :   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
`. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  `-  Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom


signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message	numériquement signée

Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract

[Christopher Martin]

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 would still have to modify the DFSG for
> the sake of consistency.

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 modification or suspension of the DFSG. 
Therefore, no modification of the DFSG would be required after the passage 
of the amendment, since it would have been decided by the developers that 
there was no inconsistency.

If you personally disagree with this, and believe that the GFDL, even 
without invariant sections, is inconsistent with the DFSG, then you may 
vote against the amendment. My above post was not intended to persuade the 
developers that they should vote for the amendment. Rather, it was 
attempting the clarify the proper status of the amendment, and therefore to 
correct the requirements for passage which the Secretary seems to have put 
upon it.

Cheers,
Christopher Martin


pgpGFlykG4aV1.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract

[Manoj Srivastava]

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
understand.
Manoj Srivastava   <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract

[Manoj Srivastava]

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 works to remain in Debian would require a
>> rider to be added to the SC, something of the form:
>> - Debian will remain 100% free
>> + Debian will remain 100% free, apart from works licensed under the
>>   GFDL
>> (the exact wording can be decided upon if the amendment passes).

>> Since this requires a modification of a foundation document, the
>> amendment requires a 3:1 majority.

>   I don't see why this _physical modification_ is necessary. I can
>   admit that the secretary says "this amendment overrules the social
>   contract, since it talks about putting non-free things in main, so
>   it requires a 3:1 majority"; but if the amendment passes, and so
>   the GR issues a statement that some GFDL documents will remain in
>   main, I don't think explicit wording is needed _in_ the SC, at
>   all.

Umm, no. The social contract and the DFSG have stated the
 goals of the project, and have been given prominent status on the web
 site, and in other pronouncements. We hould not add codicils and
 riders that alter the meaning of the SC and not modify the SC
 document itself to record these modifications.

manoj

-- 
Try to divide your time evenly to keep others happy.
Manoj Srivastava   <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract

[Manoj Srivastava]

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 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.

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
 category, and hence my ruling that in order to ship GFDL licenced
 works in main one needs to modify the SC itself.

> 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.

It is my opinion that this is trying to legislate a fallacy.

> No GR has declared the GFDL-minus-invariant-sections to be
> non-free. The GRs only decided to extend the DFSG to all of Debian,
> and then to postpone the application of this rule until after
> Sarge. The GFDL (with or without invariant sections) has been
> declared non-free with much controversy only by a very small set of
> developers, largely active on debian-legal, a body with no
> constitutional standing. While the Project finds it expedient to
> respect the general debian-legal consensus on most issues to avoid
> endless GRs on every subject, where there is a strong division of
> opinion within the developer body, or the decision will have
> important consequences, a GR to establish a license's status within
> the framework of the foundation documents seems wholly appropriate.

I would be willing to listen to arguments why GFDL licensed
 works without invariant sections are not DFSG free with an open
 mind. However, my current reading of the situation is that they
 indeed do not meet DFSG requirements.

> The Project Secretary would be overstepping his or her authority to
> declare the interpretation of the license being proposed to be
> fundamentally in violation of the foundation documents _prior_ to
> any vote on the subject.  He or she may hold a strong personal view
> on the matter, but cannot impose that view on the general shape of
> the vote.

I am, in my position as secretary, interpreting the
 constitution, and the foundation documents, as well as the proposals
 and vlaoots for the forthcoming GR.

> If the Secretary views the amendment as insufficiently clear as to
> what it is attempting to establish, then he or she can always
> request clarification.

I donot believe the proposal is unclear. I understand what the
 intent of the proposal is, and I also believe that no matter how many
 people state that something factual is incorrect, that does not make
 it so.

manoj

-- 
Pascal is a language for children wanting to be naughty. Dr. Kasi
Ananthanarayanan
Manoj Srivastava   <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract

[Don Armstrong]

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 modification or suspension
> of the DFSG.

The issue here devolves into a question of interpretation; if we can
decide to interpret the Foundation Documents in any way we want simply
by a majority vote, the requirement to have changes to them meet a 3:1
majority becomes rather pointless.


Don Armstrong

-- 
Filing a bug is probably not going to get it fixed any faster.
 -- Anthony Towns

http://www.donarmstrong.com  http://rzlab.ucr.edu


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract

[Christopher Martin]

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
>  category, and hence my ruling that in order to ship GFDL licenced
>  works in main one needs to modify the SC itself.

You must separate your personal certainty in the GFDL's non-freeness from 
your actions in the capacity of Project Secretary.

> It is my opinion that this is trying to legislate a fallacy.

It is not up to the Project Secretary to declare controversial licenses, 
over which many developers disagree, DFSG-free or not, which is precisely 
the power your decision arrogates. You may think the amendment 
fundamentally fallacious, but that's not your decision to make. The 
Secretary has some power to adjudicate issues of constitutional 
interpretation, but the DFSG is not the constitution. The Secretary is not 
charged with defending the purity of "main" with respect to the DFSG. A GR 
is the appropriate place to decide this issue, yet you have prejudged it by 
saddling the amendment with the supermajority requirement.

> I would be willing to listen to arguments why GFDL licensed
>  works without invariant sections are not DFSG free with an open
>  mind. However, my current reading of the situation is that they
>  indeed do not meet DFSG requirements.

You are entitled to this reading, but as Project Secretary you are not 
entitled to determine this for everyone else. As stated above, this is an 
issue which a GR can and should settle, not the Project Secretary.

Again, please consider rescinding the supermajority requirement for the 
amendment.

Thanks,
Christopher Martin

(I'm subscribed to d-vote now, so no CCs required; before I only read the 
d-vote archive at regular intervals)


pgpCYhayRtewp.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract

[Christopher Martin]

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 amendment is in no
> > way arguing for any sort of exception or modification or suspension
> > of the DFSG.
>
> The issue here devolves into a question of interpretation; if we can
> decide to interpret the Foundation Documents in any way we want simply
> by a majority vote, the requirement to have changes to them meet a 3:1
> majority becomes rather pointless.

This is a real dilemma faced by all constitutions or similar charter 
documents. Unfortunately, all constitutions can be undermined by the 
reinterpretation of seemingly small details. But one person's "undermining" 
is another person's "upholding".

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, through 
GRs, if I understand correctly. Certainly nothing in my reading of the 
Constitution suggests that the Secretary has this power.

The Secretary seems to be adopting the view that anyone who disagrees with 
his interpretation of the GFDL is not holding a legitimate opinion. Given 
the length of the GFDL debates, the acrimony, and the number of developers 
who remain on both sides, this seems far, far too strong a stance for a 
Project officer to adopt (even if Manoj holds that view personally). Hence 
my complaint.

Cheers,
Christopher Martin


pgpcEENRUnhgG.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract

[Don Armstrong]

[Detaching this discussion from -devel because it is not terribly on
topic there.]

On Thu, 19 Jan 2006, Christopher Martin wrote:
> 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 amendment is in no
> > > way arguing for any sort of exception or modification or suspension
> > > of the DFSG.
> >
> > The issue here devolves into a question of interpretation; if we
> > can decide to interpret the Foundation Documents in any way we
> > want simply by a majority vote, the requirement to have changes to
> > them meet a 3:1 majority becomes rather pointless.
> 
> The important question here is one of legitimacy. Who exactly has
> the authority to determine these matters of interpretation?

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 adjudicate whether a particular GR
would require such a modification to remain consistent.

> Given the length of the GFDL debates, the acrimony, and the number
> of developers who remain on both sides, this seems far, far too
> strong a stance for a Project officer to adopt (even if Manoj holds
> that view personally). Hence my complaint.

A stance has to be made one way or the other; either way involves a
personal weighing of whether the acceptance of a particular license as
acceptable in main violates the DFSG itself; either decision will
cause some to be unhappy. Indeed, the very fact that we've had 2
previous GRs on this very issue which required a modification of the
DFSG to do so seems to indicate that the project has decided on
multiple occasions that 3:1 majorities were required to deal with the
current version of the GFDL.


Don Armstrong

1: Odly enough, it's not clear that the developers can override a
decision that the Secretary has made,[2] although I'd be surprised if
a Secretary would fail to heed a clear overriding vote.

2: Well, by some other manner than electing a DPL who will fail to
reappoint the secretary and then revisiting the decision...
-- 
You could say she lived on the edge... Well, maybe not exactly on the edge,
just close enough to watch other people fall off.
  -- hugh macleod http://www.gapingvoid.com/batch8.htm

http://www.donarmstrong.com  http://rzlab.ucr.edu


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract

[Manoj Srivastava]

On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 20:43:35 -0500, Christopher Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
said: 

> 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 category, and hence my ruling that in order to ship GFDL
>> licenced works in main one needs to modify the SC itself.

> You must separate your personal certainty in the GFDL's non-freeness
> from your actions in the capacity of Project Secretary.

As project secretary, I have to determine the best form of the
 ballot for this GR. My determination is that the amendment requires a
 3:1 super majority, and is based on my best analysis of the situation
 before us.

>> It is my opinion that this is trying to legislate a fallacy.

> It is not up to the Project Secretary to declare controversial
> licenses, over which many developers disagree, DFSG-free or not,
> which is precisely the power your decision arrogates. You may think
> the amendment fundamentally fallacious, but that's not your decision
> to make. The Secretary has some power to adjudicate issues of
> constitutional interpretation, but the DFSG is not the
> constitution. The Secretary is not charged with defending the purity
> of "main" with respect to the DFSG. A GR is the appropriate place to
> decide this issue, yet you have prejudged it by saddling the
> amendment with the supermajority requirement.

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 GFDL licensed works without invariant
 sections in main, before determination that such works are indeed
 free.

Unless such a determination is made, clearly, by the
 developers, and can override the determination made by the delegates
 of the project, the release team/ ftp masters, you are subject to the
 interpretations of the delegates.

>> I would be willing to listen to arguments why GFDL licensed works
>> without invariant sections are not DFSG free with an open
>> mind. However, my current reading of the situation is that they
>> indeed do not meet DFSG requirements.

> You are entitled to this reading, but as Project Secretary you are
> not entitled to determine this for everyone else. As stated above,
> this is an issue which a GR can and should settle, not the Project
> Secretary.

So start the GR. This is not it. This is a GR about a position
 statement.

> Again, please consider rescinding the supermajority requirement for
> the amendment.

You know how to override the project secretary.

manoj

-- 
"It's a fine world, though rich in hardships at times." Augustus
McCrae
Manoj Srivastava   <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract

[Manoj Srivastava]

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, through GRs, if I understand correctly. Certainly
> nothing in my reading of the Constitution suggests that the
> Secretary has this power.

The secretary decides on the procedure of voting on a GR, and
 the final form the ballot may take. The secretary arrives at these
 decisions based on their best interpretation of the situation at
 hand.

> The Secretary seems to be adopting the view that anyone who
> disagrees with his interpretation of the GFDL is not holding a
> legitimate opinion. Given the length of the GFDL debates, the
> acrimony, and the number of developers who remain on both sides,
> this seems far, far too strong a stance for a Project officer to
> adopt (even if Manoj holds that view personally). Hence my
> complaint.

Then hold a separate GR on whether or not the GFDL meets the
 DFSG -- aj's proposal, which states the GFDL licenced documents do
 not meet the DFSG is not subject to the 3:1 majority requirements. By
 moving to have GFDL licensed works included in main ahead of a
 determination of whether or not GFDL licensed works are free or not
 means that you have to accept the secretaries interpretation of
 "reasonable" arguments.

Please note that I am not sure of the correctness of deciding
 by popular acclaim whether or not a licensed work meets the
 DFSG.  But it is certainly one way of doing things.

manoj
-- 
Be careful when a loop exits to the same place from side and bottom.
Manoj Srivastava   <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract

[Brian Nelson]

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 license as flawed, but still DFSG-free. This amendment is in no
>> > way arguing for any sort of exception or modification or suspension
>> > of the DFSG.
>>
>> The issue here devolves into a question of interpretation; if we can
>> decide to interpret the Foundation Documents in any way we want simply
>> by a majority vote, the requirement to have changes to them meet a 3:1
>> majority becomes rather pointless.
>
> This is a real dilemma faced by all constitutions or similar charter 
> documents. Unfortunately, all constitutions can be undermined by the 
> reinterpretation of seemingly small details. But one person's "undermining" 
> is another person's "upholding".
>
> 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, through 
> GRs, if I understand correctly. Certainly nothing in my reading of the 
> Constitution suggests that the Secretary has this power.
>
> The Secretary seems to be adopting the view that anyone who disagrees with 
> his interpretation of the GFDL is not holding a legitimate opinion. Given 
> the length of the GFDL debates, the acrimony, and the number of developers 
> who remain on both sides, this seems far, far too strong a stance for a 
> Project officer to adopt (even if Manoj holds that view personally). Hence 
> my complaint.

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

-- 
Captain Logic is not steering this tugboat.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract

[Christopher Martin]

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 adjudicate whether a particular GR
> would require such a modification to remain consistent.

The authority to adjudicate constitutional disputes is not the same as the 
power to interpret the DFSG, which while a foundation document, is NOT the 
constitution. And therefore it is not the role of the Secretary to 
determine whether a license complies with the GFDL, and it is therefore NOT 
within his or her power to declare that a vote on such a question of 
interpretation requires a supermajority (because this would necessarily 
imply a prior judgment on the DFSG-freeness of the license in question).

> A stance has to be made one way or the other;

The correct stance for the Secretary to adopt would be not to exceed his or 
her powers, and therefore let the vote occur without pre-judging it by 
imposing a supermajority requirement, and then accept the outcome of the 
vote regardless of personal opinion.

> either way involves a personal weighing of whether the acceptance of a
> particular license as acceptable in main violates the DFSG itself;

No, no such judgement is necessary. It is not the Secretary's role to make 
such judgments.

> Indeed, the very fact that we've had 2 previous GRs on this very issue
> which required a modification of the DFSG to do so seems to indicate that
> the project has decided on multiple occasions that 3:1 majorities were
> required to deal with the current version of the GFDL.

We have not had any GRs on the GFDL. That the status of the GFDL was in 
people's minds when debating recent GRs is immaterial. Nothing in the GRs 
refers to the GFDL, or to any other specific license.

That the previous GRs required a supermajority is due to their clear 
intention to modify or suspend foundation documents, not to establish an 
interpretation one specific application of them.

> 1: Odly enough, it's not clear that the developers can override a
> decision that the Secretary has made,[2] although I'd be surprised if
> a Secretary would fail to heed a clear overriding vote.

I'm not trying to override the Secretary in any formal constitutional 
manner. I'm simply trying to convince him not to overstep the bounds of his 
powers by making a decision which he is not entitled to make.

Cheers,
Christopher Martin


pgpmKGMPqhZVi.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract

[Christopher Martin]

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 GFDL licensed works without invariant
>  sections in main, before determination that such works are indeed
>  free.

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 that the amendment wasn't 
sufficiently explicit?

Then perhaps we've found a way around this impasse. If someone were to 
modify/restate the amendment to be more clear, would you then consider it 
as not requiring supermajority?

"Formally, the Debian Project will include in the main section of its 
distribution works licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License that 
include no Invariant Sections, no Cover Texts, no Acknowledgements, and no 
Dedications, unless permission to remove them is granted."

This could be extended to make it even more clear that we aren't engaging in 
special pleading, but view the GFDL-minus-invariant-sections as DFSG-free.

>  So start the GR. This is not it. This is a GR about a position statement.

Why can't the position statement say that the license is acceptable and 
DFSG-free? Why not just accept an amended amendment, if you will, rather 
than force an all new GR? Previous GRs have contained multiple options with 
wildly varying intentions and viewpoints before.

Cheers,
Christopher Martin


pgpw4opk2BSkZ.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract

[Thomas Bushnell BSG]

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]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract

[Thomas Bushnell BSG]

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 that the amendment wasn't 
> sufficiently explicit?

No.  I understood the amendment exactly as Manoj has characterized it:
it was an amendment to permit the GFDL in, whether or not it is
DFSG-free. 


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract

[Brian Nelson]

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.

W, look at me!  I'm Thomas Bushnell and I reply to every single
message on every single Debian mailing list, regardless of whether I
have anything useful to say!

-- 
Captain Logic is not steering this tugboat.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract

[Manoj Srivastava]

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 modification to the constitution,
>> it seems reasonable that the secretary would adjudicate whether a
>> particular GR would require such a modification to remain
>> consistent.

> The authority to adjudicate constitutional disputes is not the same
> as the power to interpret the DFSG, which while a foundation
> document, is NOT the constitution. And therefore it is not the role
> of the Secretary to determine whether a license complies with the
> GFDL, and it is therefore NOT within his or her power to declare
> that a vote on such a question of interpretation requires a
> supermajority (because this would necessarily imply a prior judgment
> on the DFSG-freeness of the license in question).

Since the ballot for this GR requires one to make a judgement
 call on the license, I would be remiss in my duties if I did not make
 a proper determination for the majority requirements for the
 amendment. As I see my duties, I _have_ to determine the proper
 procedure and ballot for this vote.

>> A stance has to be made one way or the other;

> The correct stance for the Secretary to adopt would be not to exceed
> his or her powers, and therefore let the vote occur without
> pre-judging it by imposing a supermajority requirement, and then
> accept the outcome of the vote regardless of personal opinion.

It is my judgement that I am indeed not exceeding my powers.


> We have not had any GRs on the GFDL. That the status of the GFDL was
> in people's minds when debating recent GRs is immaterial. Nothing in
> the GRs refers to the GFDL, or to any other specific license.

Quite true. Nothing is preventing that question from being
 posed to the developers as a GR. I note, however, the release team,
 as delegates, have already determined that GFDL licensed works are
 not free, and thus must be removed from Etch.

The developers may chose to override their decision, as
 provided for in the constitution.

>> 1: Odly enough, it's not clear that the developers can override a
>> decision that the Secretary has made,[2] although I'd be surprised
>> if a Secretary would fail to heed a clear overriding vote.

> I'm not trying to override the Secretary in any formal
> constitutional manner. I'm simply trying to convince him not to
> overstep the bounds of his powers by making a decision which he is
> not entitled to make.

If it is not already clear, you have failed to convince me
 that I am indeed overstepping my bounds.

manoj
-- 
Though many hands make light work, too many cooks spoil the broth.
Manoj Srivastava   <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract

[Manoj Srivastava]

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

And of whom are you asking this question?  In every vote so
 far I have had strong opinions, often sponsoring or seconding some
 optoins, and have strong views on DPL candidates as well. If you
 think that a secretary may not have personal views, you are naive. If
 you think that it is impossible for a secretary to act impartially
 given personal opinions, heck , you have just invalidated that part
 of the constitutional mechanism.

manoj
-- 
"There is no statement so absurd that no philosopher will make it." -
Cicero, Marcus Tullius
Manoj Srivastava   <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract

[Manoj Srivastava]

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 the DFSG -- which is a rather different topic
>> than stating we may include GFDL licensed works without invariant
>> sections in main, before determination that such works are indeed
>> free.

> 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 that the amendment
> wasn't sufficiently explicit?


My point is that it is about including works licensed under
 the GFDL, with no invariant sections, into main -- which is a
 different stastement than averring that such works are free, and meet
 DFSG requirements.

> Then perhaps we've found a way around this impasse. If someone were
> to modify/restate the amendment to be more clear, would you then
> consider it as not requiring supermajority?

No necessarily. I would probably consider it a separate issue
 from issuing a position statement explaining the projects decision to
 drop GFDL licensed works, and I would consider it a move to override
 the release team statement about removing GFDL licensed works for the
 Etch  release.

> "Formally, the Debian Project will include in the main section of
> its distribution works licensed under the GNU Free Documentation
> License that include no Invariant Sections, no Cover Texts, no
> Acknowledgements, and no Dedications, unless permission to remove
> them is granted."

This does not mean that such works are free, just that we
 shall include them in main, will-ye, nil-ye.

> This could be extended to make it even more clear that we aren't
> engaging in special pleading, but view the
> GFDL-minus-invariant-sections as DFSG-free.

I do not think that statement parses the way you think it
 does.

>> So start the GR. This is not it. This is a GR about a position
>> statement.

> Why can't the position statement say that the license is acceptable
> and DFSG-free? Why not just accept an amended amendment, if you
> will, rather than force an all new GR? Previous GRs have contained
> multiple options with wildly varying intentions and viewpoints
> before.

The original GR is explaining why the project considers the
 licenses non-free, since the delegates  have already so decided
 (having GFDL licensed works is now deemed non-free).

Overriding that decision is a different kettle of fish.

manoj

-- 
"Being against torture ought to be sort of a bipartisan thing." Karl
Lehenbauer
Manoj Srivastava   <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract

[Thomas Bushnell BSG]

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 question it, but it doesn't affect the case.
>
> W, look at me!  I'm Thomas Bushnell and I reply to every single
> message on every single Debian mailing list, regardless of whether I
> have anything useful to say!

Huh?  You seemed to be saying (using quite formal language like
"hereby") that your questioning should have some effect.

My point is that it does not, and need not.  It has only whatever
effect Manoj chooses to give it.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]