Mathieu Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté : > > > Mathieu Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté : > > > > It is a restriction on how I can use and transform the document, > > > > rendering the GFDL non-free. > > > > > > If _I_ (note the "I") publish a manual under the GFDL, as plain text, > > > with no invariant sections, you're allowed to modify it and > > > redistribute it. At this point, you cannot claim it's non-free. > > > > Sure I can. I can't incorporate it into my thesis, which is written > > entirely in LyX. > > Unless you find a way to make it suitable for modification to non-LyX > users. Isn't is possible to do an html export or something like that?
Why do I have to make it suitable to non-LyX users? If I translated some GPL'd C code to Haskell, I don't have to port all of the changes to the Haskell code back to C. > > > But if you start modifying my manual under the GFDL with > > > OpenOffice, the license _I_ chose force you to provide _along_ > > > with your modification something _I_ can reuse myself (even if I > > > have not OpenOffice). Because GFDL is not a BSD like license, it > > > does not permits you to do transform the documentation into a > > > binary only distribution (or something near). > > > > > > It does not restrict how you can use and transform the document, it > > > forbids you to forgot to provide the source that anybody having a > > > computer can reuse, when you redistribute it (basically, it defines > > > how you must redistribute it at least). > > > > I _am_ providing the source. The preferred means for editing my > > thesis is with LyX. The problem is that the GFDL doesn't think that > > an open format easily modified with free software qualifies. > > I'm not especially familiar with LyX but I though it was similar or > based on LaTeX. As LaTeX files are ok for the GFDL, shouldn't be the > same? The LaTeX file is akin to the html files you get from Dreamweaver. According to this clause in the GFDL Opaque formats include...machine-generated HTML produced by word processors for output purposes only. I would say that makes the LaTeX file Opaque. > > No, I am saying that the GFDL has a screwy definition for source. > > I think it's pretty complicated task to come up with a perfect license > and that the current GFDL can surely be enhanced in his letter. But > the spirit seems fine to me. For this problem, I don't think I have any issues with what they are trying to do. However, I don't understand why they didn't use the perfectly reasonable definition of source from the GPL. That makes me suspect that they might be trying to accomplish something that I don't agree with. > It would be interesting to have a clear list with a distinction > between problem in the letter and problems in the spirit, in regard to > Debian. It is difficult to figure out whether a problem is in the letter or the spirit since the FSF has been unwilling to discuss the issue. Regards, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
