[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Bug#346354: AW: Bug#346354: Is distribution of the maxdb-doc package a GPL violation?

Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 27, 2006 at 05:35:51AM -0700, Walter Landry wrote:
>> debian@martin-kittel.de wrote:
>>> I have verfified that the actual sources for the generated HTML are
>>> Microsoft Word documents and that those will not be
>>> distributed. Does the mean that the maxdb-doc package will have to
>>> be pulled from the repository?
>> Yes, unless you get a license exemption from the copyright holder
>> allowing Debian and its mirrors to distribute the HTML as is.  They
>> will probably agree.  In that case, it goes into non-free.
> It's not obvious to me that either the license exemption or the non-free
> categorization are necessary here.  GPL requires the "preferred form for
> modification", which for most people working on derivative works would
> probably *not* be the Word docs?

As I understand it, "preferred form for modification" means the
preferred form by a person who made modifications (in other words,
upstream), not the preferred form of those who would like to make
modifications (in other words, downstream).

In any case, I'd sooner edit a Word document (using OO.o, Abiword, or
similar) than the "HTML" that Word outputs.

- Josh Triplett

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply to: