Re: Suggestion to maintainers of GFDL docs
* Brian T. Sniffen (bts@alum.mit.edu) wrote:
> The MIT/X11 license and the GPL would both work, depending on whether
> you want a copyleft. The MIT license can probably be used just by
> itself. To use the GPL, though, you should probably put in a section
> which explains how your document can be viewed as software, along the
> lines of:
>
> This section is for clarification only. It is intended to expand
> on the wishes of the author, but should not be interpreted to
> change the license or copyright status of the work. The author
> intends that the LaTeX2e source for this document be treated as
> the "preferred form for modification", which is to say the "Source
> Code". All other formats -- even open, transparent formats such
> as plain text or HTML -- are hard for the author to use in
> integrating changes to his copy of the document, and so should be
> considered "Object Code". Again, this isn't a binding statement,
> and any distribution in a preferred form for modification, such as
> plain text or clean HTML, is acceptable as "Source Code" under the
> license. Distribution in a closed, hard to modify format such as
> PDF, generated HTML or PostScript, or a Microsoft Word document
> should always be treated as "Object Code".
perhaps change 'clean HTML' to 'w3c valid HTML', with a link to w3c.org's
validation site?
and possibly avoid referring directly to MSWord as well - a reference to
'binary, closed file formats' would probably do the same job.
iain
--
wh33, y1p33 3tc.
"If sharing a thing in no way diminishes it, it is not rightly owned if it is
not shared." -St. Augustine
Reply to: