Re: The Curious Case Of The Mountainous Molehill
On Tue, Feb 14, 2006 at 02:41:08PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 08:55:35PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> > Craig Sanders wrote:
> > > the DFSG also allows that the modification may be by patch only.
> > No, it does not.
> yes it does.
> > Quoting DFSG 4, with emphasis added:
> > > 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. by your loony
> literalist interpretation, no documentation can possibly be free because
> you can't distribute software built from it.
What happens if you have a document in some source format under the GFDL
(let's say latex code or sgml stuff or whatever), and you are distributing the
'compiled' version (let's say a pdf) ?