[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

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

> 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

In the FAQ, there no strict distinction of this kind, it talks about
invariant section mainly

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
  Not a native english speaker: 

Reply to: