Re: The Curious Case Of The Mountainous Molehill
Craig Sanders wrote:
>>>The license may restrict source-code from being distributed
>>>in modified form _only_ if the license allows the distribution
>>>of "patch files" with the source code for the purpose of modifying
>>>the program at build time. THE LICENSE MUST EXPLICITLY PERMIT
>>>DISTRIBUTION OF SOFTWARE BUILT FROM MODIFIED SOURCE CODE.
>>I have looked, and I can find no provisions in the GFDL explicitly
>>permitting distribution of software built from modified source code.
> the GFDL is applied to documentation, not software.
Its not hardware, its on a computer, therefor it is software.
> by your loony
> literalist interpretation, no documentation can possibly be free because
> you can't distribute software built from it.
A lot of documentation has a build process. For example, you can create
PDF from (La)TeX.
If a LaTeX document had a clause along the lines of:
... You may not modify the LaTeX source of this document. However, you
may distribute this document along with patches to be applied before
building the document, and you may distribute the results of such builds.
that would not preclude it from being a free license. (That is just an
excerpt, and not written in the correct legalese either).