Re: Results for Debian's Position on the GFDL

[Henning Makholm <henning@makholm.net>]

Scripsit Jeremy Hankins <nowan@nowan.org>

> Are really you suggesting that Word documents qualify?  Not only does
> the public availability requirement refer to the specification of the
> format (not the contents of the document), but there's still the
> question of whether it can be edited "straightforwardly with generic
> text editors."

I in trying to make sense of the "transparent" definition, one has to
note that it seems to explicitly claim that pictures in XCF format can
be edited with "generic paint programs". The fact is that the _only_
program that can edit XCF files is the Gimp, so by direct analogy one
should probably conclude that a format that can be edited by at least
one widespread free test editor qualifies as "suitable for revising
straightforwardly with generic text editor".

-- 
Henning Makholm                              "It will be useful even at this
                                      early stage to review briefly the main
                          features of the universe as they are known today."