Re: Results for Debian's Position on the GFDL
olive wrote:
>
> Later in the license they give as example of a transparent copy an XML
> file with a publicly available DTD. So openoffice document qualifies
> (as you now openoffice format is in XML format) although openoffice is
> not a "generic text" editor.
Actually, you can't edit an OpenOffice document with a generic text
editor, for OpenOffice compresses the document into a zip file.
> I think it is reasonable to interpret the GFDL by saying that if a
> document is fully understandable by free softwares, it is transparent.
That sounds like a good thing for the FSF to have written in the license
— unfortunately, though, they have not. Possibly, though, the GR is
telling us to pretend as if they have.
> Some might argue that a court will read the GFDL in a more litteral
> sense. I do not think that because it seems very obvious that the
> copyright holder of a GFDL document don't want to restrict what you do
> with your own copy. Of course I might be wrong but for every license
> there is always a risk that a juge read it in a different way; Debian
> must read the license in the most probable way.
Debian-legal has traditionally read licenses in a more pessimistic
light; we didn't want to leave Debian — or its users — in danger of
being sued for copyright infringement.
Reply to: