Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
Mathieu Roy <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Walter Landry <email@example.com> a tapoté :
> > Mathieu Roy <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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.