On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 03:11:10PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 02:41:18AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: > > > http://people.debian.org/~willy/dfdocg-0.4.txt > > > > This inherits its definition of Transparent from the FDL, but > > some DDs consider that awkward. Is there a better one? > > I wasn't aware that people had expressed problems with the definition > of Transparent; it looked pretty good to me.
Openoffice documents are classified as Opaque, thusly cannot be distributed under the GFDL nor included in Debian under this scheme. Nor can word documents, etc... > > This conflicts with "Derived Works" by denying > > some modifications (and do most understand that as "permit > > all reasonable modifications"?) > > I think it's reasonable to deny some modifications. "Derived Works" > doesn't say "must allow any modifications". Just like the GPL denies > some freedoms in order to preserve others. You have provided no justification as to why these restrictions can be permitted for 'documentation' (which you haven't defined) and why they cannot be permitted for 'non-documentation'. Thusly, dismissed as hand-waving. > > and it also contradicts > > with "No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor" because no > > topic of a secondary section can used as the main purpose. > > I don't think that's an interesting case though. Why would you take a > document that has nothing to do with a particular subject and turn it > into a document that has that subject as its main purpose? Because that part of the text was useful to you. Why do you even have to ask? -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
