Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
Mathieu Roy <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Walter Landry <email@example.com> a tapoté :
> > 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.
Sure I can. I can't incorporate it into my thesis, which is written
entirely in LyX.
> 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
> something near).
> 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).
I _am_ providing the source. The preferred means for editing my
thesis is with LyX. The problem is that the GFDL doesn't think that
an open format easily modified with free software qualifies.
> 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.
No, I am saying that the GFDL has a screwy definition for source.