Mathieu Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté : > > > Mathieu Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Beside from that, what is your problem with GFDLed documentation > > > without any invariant parts? > > > > > > (apart from the DRM issue which do not seems to be on purpose > > > problematic - and so which can be fixed, if the problem is confirmed) > > > > There is also the definition of transparent forms. I can't distribute > > GFDL'd documents I write in Openoffice or LyX. > > The fact that you cannot write GFDLed document with OpenOffice or LyX > (which are not at all in a preferred form for modification) does not > make documentation GFDLed that others persons wrote, in the preferred > form for modification, non-free.
The OpenOffice or LyX forms _are_ the preferred forms for modification. I wrote my thesis in LyX, and I certainly wouldn't prefer to work with LaTeX. The problem is that the GFDL does not specify "preferred form for modification", it specifies a format "that is suitable for revising the document straightforwardly with generic text editors". LyX and OpenOffice are not generic text editors. > If you write a GFDLed document with OpenOffice, you must provide along > with the OpenOffice version another version, in a preferred form for > modification. It's an obligation you accept to follow when you decide > to license under the GFDL a documentation. It is a restriction on how I can use and transform the document, rendering the GFDL non-free. Regards, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
