[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: A possible GFDL compromise

On Sun, 2003-08-24 at 18:21, Jacobo Tarrio wrote:
> O Domingo, 24 de Agosto de 2003 ás 16:54:53 -0500, Branden Robinson escribía:
> > drawn to the condition "You may not use technical measures to obstruct
> > or control the reading or further copying of the copies you make or
> > distribute."
> > If "make or" were stricken, and perhaps some clarification added to
> > ensure that secure transport channels between distributor and
> > distributee were not a problem, this particular problem might go away.
>  Or if this condition and the "transparent format" stuff were changed to say
> something to the effect to "if you distribute this work in a format that
> obstructs the exercise of the rights given by this license, you must provide
> a way for its recipient to get a full copy of the work in a format that
> doesn't obstruct the exercise of these rights".
>  With more legalese and other lawyer-y words, I guess :-)

How about the GPL v2? "The source code for a work means the preferred
form of the work for making modifications to it"; binary or object code
is anything that is not source. I don't see the problem in applying this
standard all software (meaning programs and documentation). LaTeX to PDF
is no different than C to ELF, and HTML in Mozilla is no different than
Ruby in /usr/bin/ruby.

All suggestions for improvements in the GFDL that I've seen, are already
present in the GPL v2. It's really a wonderful license.

The problem is that some organizations, like the FSF, seem to be
hell-bent on distributing non-free documentation to accompany their free
Joe Wreschnig <piman@debian.org>

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Reply to: