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

Re: A possible GFDL compromise

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


Attachment: pgpb7nyNmy7Qw.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: