Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
Walter Landry <email@example.com> a tapoté :
> Mathieu Roy <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > 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.
> The OpenOffice or LyX forms _are_ the preferred forms for
> modification. I wrote my thesis in LyX, and I certainly wouldn't
> prefer to work with LaTeX. The problem is that the GFDL does not
> specify "preferred form for modification", it specifies a format "that
> is suitable for revising the document straightforwardly with generic
> text editors". LyX and OpenOffice are not generic text editors.
> > 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.
> It is a restriction on how I can use and transform the document,
> rendering the GFDL non-free.
If _I_ (note the "I") publish a manual under the GFDL, as plain text,
with no invariant sections, you're allowed to modify it and
redistribute it. At this point, you cannot claim it's non-free.
But if you start modifying my manual under the GFDL with OpenOffice,
the license _I_ chose force you to provide _along_ with your
modification something _I_ can reuse myself (even if I have not
Because GFDL is not a BSD like license, it does not permits you to do
transform the documentation into a binary only distribution (or
It does not restrict how you can use and transform the document, it
forbids you to forgot to provide the source that anybody having a
computer can reuse, when you redistribute it (basically, it defines
how you must redistribute it at least).
You last phrase is just like if you were saying: the GPL force me to
distribute the source code, it is a restriction on how I can use and
transform the source code, rendering the GPL non-free.
Not a native english speaker: