On Thursday 09 February 2006 21:27, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Christopher Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
To impose the 3:1 requirement requires, beforehand, a judgment
concerning the DFSG. Since no one has found a Secretarial basis for
that power, it follows that to arbitrarily impose
On Thursday 09 February 2006 20:26, Raul Miller wrote:
On 2/9/06, Christopher Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But why does the Secretary get to decide whether this barrier should be
set or not?
The constitution says:
... the final decision on the form of ballot(s) is the Secretary's -
On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 06:41:04PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Still, I have no confidence at this point. I am quite sure that, even
if Anthony's original resolution passes overwhelmingly, we will see
another GR with the effect keep GFDL'd documentation in main before
long.
What are
On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 12:16:43PM +0100, Jérôme Marant wrote:
Quoting Marco d'Itri [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Well, maybe the people who mislabeled the everything is software vote
as an editorial change and deceived many other developers should have
tought about this.
The only people it made
On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 11:24:13 +1000, Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au said:
On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 11:45:48PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Or maybe this is only something that has been invented a posteriori
when people realized some documentation from the FSF, that was
believed to be
Christopher Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
No one's. He should allow the developers to decide without shaping the vote
by imposing 3:1 supermajority requirements (when doing so presupposes the
very issue under debate, as in the case of DFSG interpretation).
Having a majority vote amounts
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 06:41:04PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Still, I have no confidence at this point. I am quite sure that, even
if Anthony's original resolution passes overwhelmingly, we will see
another GR with the effect keep GFDL'd
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 08:58:23AM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 01:49:41PM +0100, Simon Richter wrote:
The binutils package generates part of its documentation from header
files in order to get the structures and constants right. The headers
are GPLed, the compiled
aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote:
Actually it's the opposite claim -- it's not about the spirit of the license
that Nick's talking about, it's the spirit of the DFSG.
True, that is what he said, so I guess my comment was off-point. Of course,
everyone agrees that we should adhere to the spirit of
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 09:11:11PM -0500, Christopher Martin wrote:
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,
On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 09:21:36PM +1300, Nick Phillips wrote:
What it says, for those who can't (or can't be bothered) to read it is
essentially this:
We will include GFDL'd works that have no bad bits unless we have
permission to remove them.
Or rewritten slightly more clearly (by bad
On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 08:47:36PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 09:21:36PM +1300, Nick Phillips wrote:
What it says, for those who can't (or can't be bothered) to read it is
essentially this:
We will include GFDL'd works that have no bad bits unless we have
On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 11:50:51AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On 2/8/06, Nick Phillips [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The GR as amended might appear to contradict the Social Contract, or the
DFSG, but it certainly *does not* modify them, and hence cannot be said to
require a supermajority.
This
Nick Phillips [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
documents. It clearly asserts otherwise, and one might assume that
developers voting for it would agree with that. If it won a majority,
it would therefore seem to be the case that the majority of developers
agreed with it. In which case those asserting
On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 07:56:45PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Nick Phillips [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
documents. It clearly asserts otherwise, and one might assume that
developers voting for it would agree with that. If it won a majority,
it would therefore seem to be the case that
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
In any event, there is in fact a meaning in that case: the 3:1
suerpmajority would still apply to issues where the majority of developers
felt that the proposed resolution did contradict the social contract or
DFSG -- and that the social
On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 08:58:39PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
In any event, there is in fact a meaning in that case: the 3:1
suerpmajority would still apply to issues where the majority of developers
felt that the proposed resolution did
Nick Phillips [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The GR as amended might appear to contradict the Social Contract, or the
DFSG, but it certainly *does not* modify them, and hence cannot be said to
require a supermajority.
Well, um. That depends if you want the GR-as-amended to actually *do*
anything
Nick Phillips [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Now, the amendment (Adeodato's) itself. I've just noticed that it's a
complete waste of space as presented at
http://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_001 -- the second paragraph of
point 2) of the first (un-headed) section reads as follows:
Formally, the
On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 08:35:19PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
Christopher Martin wrote:
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 a simple
On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 09:45:40PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 11:45:26 -0500, Christopher Martin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
So let's start again. Let's say that someone tried put forward a new
amendment in place of the old. This amendment makes clear its
intention
On Friday 20 January 2006 00:22, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
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.
So indeed
Em Qui, 2006-01-19 às 20:30 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG escreveu:
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
Christopher Martin wrote:
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 a simple majority can yell, there is no inconsistency then the 3:1
requirement has
On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 11:45:26 -0500, Christopher Martin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
So let's start again. Let's say that someone tried put forward a new
amendment in place of the old. This amendment makes clear its
intention to assert the position of the Debian Project as viewing
the GFDL, minus
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
* 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
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
* 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
* 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
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,
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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,
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
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
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
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]
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
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.
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
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
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
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
101 - 151 of 151 matches
Mail list logo
