Re: Results for Debian's Position on the GFDL

[Walter Landry <wlandry@ucsd.edu>]

"Raul Miller" <moth.debian@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/14/06, Glenn Maynard <glenn@zewt.org> wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 14, 2006 at 03:06:58PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > > And the Opaque issue only applies when the transparent copies are not
> > > distributed.  It's simple enough to include the transparent copies in
> > > any .deb, and it's simple enough to file an RC bug report against any
> > > package with GFDL'd content which doesn't include the transparent
> > > copies.
> >
> > Maybe I'm misunderstanding the issue you're referring to.  My issue with
> > the "transparent copies" bit is that it prohibits converting the document
> > to, say, a Word document.
> 
> That's allowed.
> 
> > The GPL allows it: I can convert it to Word, and make that my source form
> > (using it for all future modifications,  throwing away the original HTML and all that).
> 
> Not necessarily.
> 
> As a counter example: A word document is not the preferred form for working
> with .c source code, in the general case.

If he is using it for all future modifications, then it _is_ the
preferred form for modification.

> Of course, in some specific cases a word document might be acceptable.
> Likewise, in some specific cases a word document might be transparent.

A Word document is never Transparent.  From the GFDL:

  A "Transparent" copy of the Document means a machine-readable copy,
  represented in a format whose specification is available to the
  general public ... 

The Word format specification is not available to the public.

Cheers,
Walter Landry
wlandry@ucsd.edu