Re: GFDL freedoms
[Replying only to -project, since there's *ABSOLUTELY NO POINT* in
having something on -private when it's already on -project.]
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 05:50:08PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > Openoffice documents are classified as Opaque, thusly cannot be
> > distributed under the GFDL nor included in Debian under this
> > scheme. Nor can word documents, etc...
>
> Fair point. Mako, is this something that's been raised with the FSF
> in your ctte?
The FSF has been made aware of the issues with the current version of
the GFDL's definition of Transparent and Opaque works, yes.
> I'm not sure I need to define documentation. We aren't robots, we
> can make judgement calls on what is, or is not, documentation.
But what, pray tell, will we base this "judgement call" upon?
Don Armstrong
--
Any excuse will serve a tyrant.
-- Aesop
http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu
Reply to: