Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
Walter Landry <email@example.com> a tapoté :
> Mathieu Roy <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > Beside from that, what is your problem with GFDLed documentation
> > without any invariant parts?
> > (apart from the DRM issue which do not seems to be on purpose
> > problematic - and so which can be fixed, if the problem is confirmed)
> There is also the definition of transparent forms. I can't distribute
> GFDL'd documents I write in Openoffice or LyX.
The fact that you cannot write GFDLed document with OpenOffice or LyX
(which are not at all in a preferred form for modification) does not
make documentation GFDLed that others persons wrote, in the preferred
form for modification, non-free.
If you write a GFDLed document with OpenOffice, you must provide along
with the OpenOffice version another version, in a preferred form for
modification. It's an obligation you accept to follow when you decide
to license under the GFDL a documentation.
But we're not about to list the reasons why some persons may or may
not choose the GFDL, are we?
Not a native english speaker: