Re: Suggestion to maintainers of GFDL docs
iain d broadfoot <email@example.com> writes:
> plain text would simply mean that i can type `vim something`, and have
> the text appear in front of me. presumably, those strange foreign chaps
> already have their systems set up to handle those strange foreign chars.
But *I* don't. So it's not a preferred form for modification to me.
> i'm never entirely convinced of the need for inline images, but i can
> certainly see that they _would_ be used if available.
The argument doesn't need them to be inline, just graphics which need
to fall under the same license as the text. .fig is very close to
plain text, but really not parsable by humans above a very simple
>> Since this isn't actually license text, but merely accompanying
>> clarification, it's probably OK to be sloppy and request plain text,
>> or "must be editable with free software."
> but that allows MSWord docs, since i can edit them with Abiword, OOo
*Some* word docs might, then, be considered open. Certainly, I've
been unable to open others in reasonably up-to-date Abiword or OpenOffice.
> maybe request a plain text version alongside any other formats? or
> "must be editable with free software and must be saved in a Free format?"
Since these are just suggestions from the author, I see no harm in any
Brian T. Sniffen firstname.lastname@example.org