Re: Unidentified subject!
Anthony DeRobertis <email@example.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 2003-09-18 at 16:05, Walter Landry wrote:
> > The definition of transparent is similar to, but not the same as
> > source. For example, the "source" for a LyX document is not
> > "transparent".
> I understand that; in fact, I was one of the many people who pointed out
> that problem. But that's not what Brian said --- he said that there is a
> violation of DFSG 2 "since it does not permit 'distribution in source
> code as well as compiled form'." That's what I'd like a clarification
I see what you're saying. Yes, Debian is allowed to distribute the
source to GFDL'd licenses, as long as Debian has a transparent version
as well. If Debian doesn't have a transparent version, then it can't
distribute it at all. So DFSG #2 doesn't really come into play. It
is more DFSG #1, because Debian can't distribute it at all, and DFSG
#3, because modifications may make the result undistributable.