olive wrote: > > 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.
Actually, you can't edit an OpenOffice document with a generic text editor, for OpenOffice compresses the document into a zip file. > I think it is reasonable to interpret the GFDL by saying that if a > document is fully understandable by free softwares, it is transparent. That sounds like a good thing for the FSF to have written in the license — unfortunately, though, they have not. Possibly, though, the GR is telling us to pretend as if they have. > Some might argue that a court will read the GFDL in a more litteral > sense. I do not think that because it seems very obvious that the > copyright holder of a GFDL document don't want to restrict what you do > with your own copy. Of course I might be wrong but for every license > there is always a risk that a juge read it in a different way; Debian > must read the license in the most probable way. Debian-legal has traditionally read licenses in a more pessimistic light; we didn't want to leave Debian — or its users — in danger of being sued for copyright infringement. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]