MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...]
>> No, punting to a GR [...] ends up with -legal folks complaining that >> the resolution doesn't make sense. > I think that most are reasonable and do that only if the resolution > includes no explanation. One of the inherent problems of resolving license discussions about specific licenses by GR is that you probably won't get a rationale, since everyone voting may have a different rationale. With the GFDL, for instance, I expect that among the people voting to allow it into main were people who believe that the GFDL license terms sans invarient sections truly are DFSG-free, people who feel the DFSG is too restrictive, people who think that they aren't DFSG-free but we should make an exception for the GFDL, people who feel the DFSG are only guidelines and shouldn't be applied restrictively, and probably several other opinions. There's no way of separating those out afterwards, and I don't think we're likely to come up with a reasonable ballot on a single license that would do so. -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
