On Wed, 2002-06-12 at 20:54, Walter Landry wrote:
> If the license doesn't require source, then the license is no longer
> copyleft.
I don't think you understood my point.
For software, yes, where the source code is (by definition) the
preferred format for human-editing. However, for documents, you have a
myriad of functionally and technically equivalent formats (HTML, custom
SGML/XML, LaTeX, Lout), and what one person prefers may be different
than what anyone else does.
My point is that "source" for a document should not be the actual
"source" (as it is being treated in the autobook case) but any open
(what the FDL calls Transparent) format, because there is functionally
no difference, and in fact the Transparent format will probably be more
useful than any source you would get.
> 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.
Documents don't have executables. They have different formats. These
formats can all be open and functionally equivalent, changing only in
syntax. Again using autobook as the example, Debian distributes tools
for working with HTML, and HTML is an open format. autobook is non-free
not because it is legally or technically difficult to modify, but
because of a requirement of "having source" that, in this case, would
gain us little and is costing us a lot (not having a good book in main).
--
- Joe Wreschnig <piman@sacredchao.net> - http://www.sacredchao.net
"What I did was justified because I had a policy of my own... It's
okay to be different, to not conform to society."
-- Chen Kenichi, Iron Chef Chinese
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part