Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 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 GPL allows me to distribute *just* a binary, with the requirement
that I offer the source as well. It also allows me to offer just
source.
The GFDL does not allow me to distribute *just* a non-Transparent
form.
--
Brian T. Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.evenmere.org/~bts/
