Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
Walter Landry <wlandry@ucsd.edu> a tapoté :
> Mathieu Roy <yeupou@gnu.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?
--
Mathieu Roy
Homepage:
http://yeupou.coleumes.org
Not a native english speaker:
http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english
Reply to: