Re: Unidentified subject!
Anthony DeRobertis <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On Thursday, Sep 18, 2003, at 11:24 US/Eastern, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
> > Also, the requirement to distribute a transparent form appears to
> > violate DFSG 2, since it does not permit "distribution in source code
> > as well as compiled form".
> Brian, I'm not sure how that follows. Could you elaborate?
> AFAICT, the requirement to distribute in transparent, e.g., source,
> form is quite similar to the requirement from the GPL, version 2, which
> we all consider free (per DFSG 10, if nothing else).
The definition of transparent is similar to, but not the same as
source. For example, the "source" for a LyX document is not