On Tue, 2003-09-09 at 14:49, Mathieu Roy wrote: > Walter Landry <wlandry@ucsd.edu> a tapoté : > > > Mathieu Roy <yeupou@gnu.org> wrote: > > > Andreas Barth <aba@not.so.argh.org> a tapoté : > > > > > > > * Mathieu Roy (yeupou@gnu.org) [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. Actually, one of the reasons this was considered "acceptable" by many, is because it's *not* a direct problem using LaTeX. LaTeX has convenient ways to map resource names that other languages do not, or that was what I gathered from the discussion. It is, however, a direct problem in many other programming environments. -- Joe Wreschnig <piman@debian.org>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part