GFDLed and preferred form
Walter Landry <wlandry@ucsd.edu> a tapoté :
> Mathieu Roy <yeupou@gnu.org> wrote:
> > Walter Landry <wlandry@ucsd.edu> 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.
Unless you find a way to make it suitable for modification to non-LyX
users. Isn't is possible to do an html export or something like that?
> > 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 OpenOffice). 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.
I'm not especially familiar with LyX but I though it was similar or
based on LaTeX. As LaTeX files are ok for the GFDL, shouldn't be the
same?
> No, I am saying that the GFDL has a screwy definition for source.
I think it's pretty complicated task to come up with a perfect license
and that the current GFDL can surely be enhanced in his letter. But
the spirit seems fine to me.
It would be interesting to have a clear list with a distinction
between problem in the letter and problems in the spirit, in regard to
Debian.
In the FAQ, there no strict distinction of this kind, it talks about
invariant section mainly
http://home.twcny.rr.com/nerode/neroden/fdl.html
I think that this invariant question should be taken apart. it's
easier to see what would require a change in the letter in the GFDL
for the GFDLed manual without invariant sections to be considered as
free documentation by Debian (yes I wrote documentation).
--
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: