On Mon, 25 Aug 2003, Fedor Zuev wrote: > Documentation in not a software. There is no any one-way > transformation from the source to the binary. In many cases, such as TeX source to pdf, there's a one way transformation with loss of information. (Comments are lost, internal reference names are lost. In fact, any information not included in the final binary is lost. [By definition.]) In fact, it's really rare for there to be a non-trivial transformation that doesn't loose information. > At the very least, if you can read the document, you always, > technically, can OCR it. At the very least, if you can use the software, you always, technically, can dissassemble it. > So, GFDL really needed only one requrement: forbidding to place > further legal restriction on the format of derivative work. > > But, BTW, I do not see how these restrictions in the current GFDL > any more restrective than similar restrictions in GPL. Your line of reasoning in these two sentences is well hidden. Exactly what are you trying to claim in regards to the GFDL and its relationship to the GPL? Don Armstrong -- If a nation values anything more than freedom, it will lose its freedom; and the irony of it is that if it is comfort or money it values more, it will lose that, too. -- W. Somerset Maugham http://www.donarmstrong.com http://www.anylevel.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu
Attachment:
pgpb7nyNmy7Qw.pgp
Description: PGP signature