Hi Florian,
as far as I know the actual upstream 'source code' is MS-Word, so I
don't know if one were better of with a proprietary format. Given the
fact that HTML can still be processed with simple text processing tools
I have no problem to take this at least as 'some sort of' source code
especially if upstream decides to release it that way. It would be
different if they released a binary format under the GPL (although I am
sure there exist plenty of lengthy discussions about this subject).
Finally, I would still argue that it is upstream's choice which license
to use for which sort of files. It doesn't need to make sense for it to
be legally ok. If upstream declares that they want the html files to be
"the preferred form for making modifications" it is their choice and
does not force them to redistribute the sources they generate their
output from, since those sources were never released under GPL.
It is the ones redistributing the files (aka Debian) who are not allowed
to decide what they consider source and what any more, and in this case,
the html files are the source that was released.
For that matter, glancing over the GPL once more, I don't see a legal
problem releasing a binary blob under the GPL, as long as I am the
copyright holder and declare the disassembly as my "preferred form for
making modifications".
Best wishes,
Martin.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
