"Raul Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 3/14/06, Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 14, 2006 at 03:06:58PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > > > And the Opaque issue only applies when the transparent copies are not > > > distributed. It's simple enough to include the transparent copies in > > > any .deb, and it's simple enough to file an RC bug report against any > > > package with GFDL'd content which doesn't include the transparent > > > copies. > > > > Maybe I'm misunderstanding the issue you're referring to. My issue with > > the "transparent copies" bit is that it prohibits converting the document > > to, say, a Word document. > > That's allowed. > > > The GPL allows it: I can convert it to Word, and make that my source form > > (using it for all future modifications, throwing away the original HTML > > and all that). > > Not necessarily. > > As a counter example: A word document is not the preferred form for working > with .c source code, in the general case.
If he is using it for all future modifications, then it _is_ the preferred form for modification. > Of course, in some specific cases a word document might be acceptable. > Likewise, in some specific cases a word document might be transparent. A Word document is never Transparent. From the GFDL: A "Transparent" copy of the Document means a machine-readable copy, represented in a format whose specification is available to the general public ... The Word format specification is not available to the public. Cheers, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
