On Sun, 2003-08-24 at 18:21, Jacobo Tarrio wrote: > O Domingo, 24 de Agosto de 2003 ás 16:54:53 -0500, Branden Robinson escribía: > > > drawn to the condition "You may not use technical measures to obstruct > > or control the reading or further copying of the copies you make or > > distribute." > > If "make or" were stricken, and perhaps some clarification added to > > ensure that secure transport channels between distributor and > > distributee were not a problem, this particular problem might go away. > > Or if this condition and the "transparent format" stuff were changed to say > something to the effect to "if you distribute this work in a format that > obstructs the exercise of the rights given by this license, you must provide > a way for its recipient to get a full copy of the work in a format that > doesn't obstruct the exercise of these rights". > > With more legalese and other lawyer-y words, I guess :-)
How about the GPL v2? "The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it"; binary or object code is anything that is not source. I don't see the problem in applying this standard all software (meaning programs and documentation). LaTeX to PDF is no different than C to ELF, and HTML in Mozilla is no different than Ruby in /usr/bin/ruby. All suggestions for improvements in the GFDL that I've seen, are already present in the GPL v2. It's really a wonderful license. The problem is that some organizations, like the FSF, seem to be hell-bent on distributing non-free documentation to accompany their free programs. -- Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
