On Fri, 2003-09-26 at 14:43, Matthew Garrett wrote: > I've put a copy of the GFDL with descriptions of various issues at > http://www.codon.org.uk/~mjg59/fdl.html . It's likely that I've missed > things, made mistakes or phrased stuff badly, so feedback would be good. Quickly, you missed the requirement to include transparent copies. When I noted this to RMS, he said he'll look into it, so I hope it'll be fixed. Anyway, here is what I sent to RMS to explain it: 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. Second, you have used MS Word as the problem with the definition of transparent sections. More interesting ones are OpenOffice and Lyx. Also, music is interesting, too. Third, you have no comments on front and back cover texts. I think those are not free. For yet another reason, see my recent post to -legal and rms about the Lanham Act. Fourth, I think (N) is fine WRT the Endorsements section. Not with Invariant Sections, but those aren't fine in any case.
Description: This is a digitally signed message part