Re: GFDLed and preferred form
Mathieu Roy <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Walter Landry <email@example.com> a tapoté :
> > 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.
> 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?
Why do I have to make it suitable to non-LyX users? If I translated
some GPL'd C code to Haskell, I don't have to port all of the changes
to the Haskell code back to C.
> > > 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
The LaTeX file is akin to the html files you get from Dreamweaver.
According to this clause in the GFDL
Opaque formats include...machine-generated HTML produced by word
processors for output purposes only.
I would say that makes the LaTeX file Opaque.
> > 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.
For this problem, I don't think I have any issues with what they are
trying to do. However, I don't understand why they didn't use the
perfectly reasonable definition of source from the GPL. That makes me
suspect that they might be trying to accomplish something that I don't
> 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
It is difficult to figure out whether a problem is in the letter or
the spirit since the FSF has been unwilling to discuss the issue.