Re: GNU FDL 1.2 draft comment summary posted, and RFD
Joe Wreschnig <piman@sacredchao.net> wrote:
> Something else I thought of that the license may wish to address. Right
> now, the Debian autobook package is non-free, despite it being in a
> non-proprietary format, and under a free license. This is because it was
> generated from LaTeX source with latex2html, and without the source it
> has to be in non-free. I would prefer that the new license not demand
> "source" of any kind (which is probably some proprietary Quark or
> PageMaker thing much of the time), but instead just an open format.
If the license doesn't require source, then the license is no longer
copyleft.
> This may also be a problem in the DFSG's definition of source, too. It
> would be disappointing of the DFSG ended up mandating distribution of
> proprietary formats rather than open ones; I'd like to see this dealt
> with in this license if possible, since I would guess that the DFSG is
> much harder to update than the license.
The GPL already has a means for dealing with things like this. If you
distribute executables, you are required to distribute everything to
make that executable except for what is normally found with the OS.
If you can't, because you're not allowed to distribute Pagemaker,
you're breaking the license. This situation comes up frequently on
this list.
Regards,
Walter Landry
wlandry@ucsd.edu
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: