<x-flowed>At 09:23 AM 1/16/01 -0600, David Douthitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 16 Jan 2001, at 1:53, Mike Noyes wrote:
>
> > The Linux Documentation Project uses the GFDL and they release .pdf
> > versions of documents. I think as long as you have a transparent
> > version available it's ok. Plus, there are numerous pdf2xxx
> > translators available, and the pdf specification is open. I don't
> > think pdfs are a problem. Usual formats are: sgml/xml (DocBook),
> > html, pdf, postscript, plain text, DVI, and LaTeX.
>
> From the GNU FDL (Section 1... Definitions):
><snip>
> > SGML or XML using a publicly available DTD
><snip>
David,
This is what the Linux Documentation Project uses. All documents are
submitted using this format. Alternate formats are generated with parsing
engines (e.g. jade).
><snip>
> From the way it sounds, the GFDL is trying very hard to get us to use
>a "Transparent" format, that is, a format which can be read by any
>number of publicly available copy-lefted tools, rather than forcing
>us to use a proprietary tool - and also, it wants us to use an "open"
>format, which isn't controlled by corporate interests.
The GFDL is trying to make sure a transparent version is available. Just
like you can distribute binaries for GPL software the GFDL allows
distribution of opaque document formats. As long as a transparent version
is available it isn't a problem.
> > Usual formats are: sgml/xml (DocBook), html, pdf, postscript,
> > plain text, DVI, and LaTeX.
>
>According to the definitions given:
>
>Transparent: SGML/XML, HTML, Text, and LaTeX
>Opaque: PDF, Postscript
>
>DVI is not mentioned; I presume that DocBook is a free software
>package?
DVI is just another printable version. I suspect it's considered opaque.
DocBook is an SGML/XML DTD.
>I'm not sure why PDF and Postscript would be considered Opaque;
>perhaps because the PDF specification isn't open (?) and because
>there is no GNU-compatibly licensed Postscript interpreters available
>- Ghostscript uses the Alladin license, which is not GNU-compatible,
>though I believe it IS considered to satisify the requirements to be
>a valid OSI Open Source License.
This sounds right, but I thought Adobe opened up the pdf specification.
> > Also, would you like me to create an DocBook XML version?
>
>I suppose. What does it take? The original is RTF format.
I can create a version from the RTF or the PDF. It's going to take a while
though.
>Another thing - from the sound of it, to be properly licensed under
>the FDL, it must be included in the documentation, with an
>appropriate copyright line. I haven't seen this elsewhere, and I
>don't know how that would affect the documentation collection at the
>LEAF project. Would every doc have to include the GFDL? Can we
>include the FDL as a LEAF document? Or is a link enough?
This is still under debate. The license does want the text included, but
it's not certain if a link satisfies this condition or not. The LDP states
in sec 8.2 para 2 last sentence of the "LDP Author Guide" that links are ok.
http://linuxdoc.org/LDP/LDP-Author-Guide/makingcopyright.html
~ We recommend using the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) or the
~ Open Publication License (OPL) without options A and B. If you
~ choose, you can get DocBook markups up both the GNU GPL and the GNU
~ FDL from the GNOME Documentation Project. You can then merely
~ include the license in its entirety in your document. Due to its
~ length, you may just want to provide a link to the source.
Debian is using the clause in sec 6 of the GFDL to include a single copy of
the license for the whole distribution.
~ 6. COLLECTIONS OF DOCUMENTS
~ You may make a collection consisting of the Document and other
~ documents released under this License, and replace the individual
~ copies of this License in the various documents with a single copy
~ that is included in the collection, provided that you follow the
~ rules of this License for verbatim copying of each of the documents
~ in all other respects.
>Maybe these are good questions for the License Forum?
Yes, you're asking questions that I can't answer definitively. I'm not a
lawyer.
--
Mike Noyes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
http://leaf.sourceforge.net/
_______________________________________________
Leaf-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
</x-flowed>
