Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Thursday, Sep 18, 2003, at 11:24 US/Eastern, Brian T. Sniffen wrote: > > > Also, the requirement to distribute a transparent form appears to > > violate DFSG 2, since it does not permit "distribution in source code > > as well as compiled form". > > Brian, I'm not sure how that follows. Could you elaborate? > > AFAICT, the requirement to distribute in transparent, e.g., source, > form is quite similar to the requirement from the GPL, version 2, which > we all consider free (per DFSG 10, if nothing else).
The definition of transparent is similar to, but not the same as source. For example, the "source" for a LyX document is not "transparent". Regards, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED]