olive <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > The greatest problem is that the GFDL is really badly written and > although I have always defended that it is free, it would be very > usefull if the FSF could one for all resolve these ambiguities.
Yes. And there's still some hope that it will happen, but evidently not until GPLv3 is taken care of. > Later in the license they give as example of a transparent copy an XML > file with a publicly available DTD. So openoffice document qualifies (as > you now openoffice format is in XML format) although openoffice is not a > "generic text" editor. Yes. But XML is editable with a generic text editor, and it's quite straightforward to programmatically translate it into other formats. The same cannot be said for word documents. > I think it is reasonable to interpret the GFDL by > saying that if a document is fully understandable by free softwares, it > is transparent. I say that it is reasonable that if we denote by WORD* > the subset of WORD fully understandable by openoffice; then a document > in the WORD* format is transparent since the specification of WORD* is > public. Moreover a document in WORD* can be make transparent by storing > it in the openoffice format. Then what purpose did RMS have with the bit about publicly available specifications and being editable with generic text editors? What was he ruling out, if not things like word documents? -- Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
