Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
Walter Landry <firstname.lastname@example.org> a tapoté :
> Mathieu Roy <email@example.com> wrote:
> > Andreas Barth <firstname.lastname@example.org> a tapoté :
> > > * Mathieu Roy (email@example.com) [030909 11:20]:
> > > > And it leads me to another question for the list: when thinking about
> > > > the GFDL, the answer from the list is 'the GFDL is not
> > > > DFSG-compliant', but should we consider that GFDLed documentation is
> > > > equal to non-free software, by disregarding the license itself which
> > > > provide freedoms that no non-free software provides? It's a bit
> > >
> > > Sorry, but there is certainly non-free software that provide freedom
> > > equally to GFDL.
> > Name one.
> > (Note that when you speak of the freedom brought by the GFDL, you
> > cannot consider that the invariant option is surely used)
> The old LPPL.
I would say that the LPPL is not equal. Because it requires you to
change the name of the files you modify and that's a direct problem
when using LaTeX. It's not just like carrying a text in some place
while you are not forced to read it, it "falls directly within that
overall subject" (LaTeX usage).
Not a native english speaker: