Hi Martin, On Wed, May 10, 2006 at 09:33:18PM +0200, Martin Kittel wrote: > just a quick update of the situation: > Upstream is still using Word documents as the basis for the HTML docs. I > have asked about the possibility of a license exemption but am not > expecting an answer anytime soon. > This still leaves the discussion open as to whether the HTML would > qualify as the preferred basis for modifications, especially in light of > the fact the upstream has published the HTML only. Of course, the point in my posts is that you have the power to make a deliberate choice of source format here, by using the HTML as the basis for your *own* modifications. But you would first have to agree that the HTML is suitable for editing, and then actually do such edits. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. vorlon@debian.org http://www.debian.org/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature