On Fri, 2003-08-22 at 15:40, John Goerzen wrote: > On Fri, Aug 22, 2003 at 01:27:53PM -0600, Jamin W. Collins wrote: > > > > addresses the problems which affect all GFDL documents: the > > > > requirements for transparent formats, and the "anti-DMCA" clause (the > > > > ban on technical access control measures). It also doesn't > > > > > > That doesn't seem to me to be any more non-free than the GPL requiring > > > people that distribute binaries also distribute soures. > > > > Nothing in the GPL indicates (at least TMK) that I can not provide the > > sources via some access control measure. > > But you cannot make it such that the people that receive sources from you > are prevented from copying them. GFDL seems to be doing the same to me.
But it does it in a way that makes it useless in some cases (encrypted filesystems) and a pain in the ass in others (if you wrote it in MS Word form, you'd have to distribute it as one of the "open formats" MS Word supports, which are HTML and plain text - both of which are lossy conversions from the *real* source). The GPL says you have to distribute the source, which is your preferred format for modification. The GFDL says you have to distribute the source, and that the source has to be in the *FSF's* preferred form for modification. -- Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
