Re: Results for Debian's Position on the GFDL
olive wrote:
>
> I think he want to rule out formats only understandable by proprietary
> sofwares.
The open standards bit is enough to accomplish that. So would be the
generic text editors bit. Yet, it has both. Generally, when reading
legal documents you have to assume the words and clauses are there for a
reason; readings the render them useles are not preferred.
> It seems that RMS was not really aware of the fact that word documents
> can be open by free software (which was maybe the case when he wrote
> the GFDL) (as the page
> http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html suggests).
Weird, considering AbiWord, wvMime, etc. have done it for a while
(though nowhere near as well as OpenOffice.org).
> It just seems odd that a document translatable to a transparent copy
> by a free software is not itself transparent.
Yes, it does. I'm pretty sure we pointed all of this out to RMS back
during the draft comment period for GFDL 1.2, and it was all ignored :-(
Reply to: