On Sun, 2003-09-21 at 18:33, Richard Stallman wrote: > "If you publish or distribute Opaque copies of the Document numbering > more than 100, you must either include a machine-readable Transparent > copy along with each Opaque copy," could indeed be read differently > than the GPL. I think the FSF was thinking "book in a book store" here, > not "FTP site" or "table at a Linux convention." > > I'm not sure what the scenario is, or what the perceived problem is. The perceived problem is this: Let's say I want to put a GFDL document on my FTP site, in an opaque form. My FTP site is popular, so it will distribute copies numbering more than 100. I think its reasonable that if I just put a transparent form alongside the PDF, that should be all I have to do. Instead, the GFDL seems to read that I must somehow "include a machine-readble Transparent copy" (i.e., not allow the opaque form to be downloaded without the tansparent form) or keep the transparent form available for (forgive me if I'm mistaken about the time) one year. Basically, the problem is if the answer to this question from the GPL FAQ: <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#HowCanIMakeSureEachDownloadGetsSource> applies to the GFDL as well.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part