On Thursday 14 April 2005 19:25, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 05:55:31PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 05:50:08PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > > On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 03:11:10PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 02:41:18AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> > > Openoffice documents are classified as Opaque, thusly cannot be
> > > distributed under the GFDL nor included in Debian under this
> > > scheme.
> > Ah, because they aren't editable in a "generic text editor"? Fair
> > point.
er, are you aware that an openoffice document is basically a zip file of a
coupple of xml documents (plus included pictures if any)?
-> you definately /can/ edit them in a generic text editor, in fact I've
done so twice in the past (couple of years back now)
furthermore, it's being standarized by OASIS (as OpenDocument), the same
organization that maintains the docbook standard
Given the above I don't really see any real difference of a tarball with a
docbook and included pictures/graphs/,... and an Openoffice doc.
Why on earth would we want to exclude openoffice docs (provided that the
contents is licensed freely?)
--
Cheers, cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis)
1. Encrypted mail preferred (GPG KeyID: 0x86624ABB)
2. Plain-text mail recommended since I move html and double
format mails to a low priority folder (they're mainly spam)
Attachment:
pgpgFa73xzYcp.pgp
Description: PGP signature