Hello everyone !
I have a question about the GNU-FDL licence when I publish a document on the web. My problem is the interpretation of the rule "100 copy => transparent format". When I publish a FDL-licensed document on-line (free download) do have to suppose that the 100 copy rule applies ?
I have two user-case.
1. I typeset a LaTeX document for basis school in physics. The website where I publish only accepts one file[1]. So I prefer to publish a pdf version instead of a zip with the pdf and the LaTeX sources files. This is simpler for the reader. The pdf format being an opaque format, do I violate my own FDL licence ? Of course, I left my email address in the document and I send LaTeX source-files to everyone ask.
2. The second user case is much more trollful ... but it is truth. We want to create collaborative physics and mathematics texbooks[2], but most of potential collaborators are Word-users. You know that arguments like "freedom, interoperability and so on" do not work because "everyone has Word, thus in fact OOo is not interoperable" ... hum ... A good argument in order to use an open format and FDL licence is that one cannot make "copy-paste" from Wikipedia to Word and publish the result on the web because of Wikipedia's FDL licence.
So : does the FDL imposes the "100 copy" rule to any on-line document ?
Thanks a lot Laurent
[1] Namely : http://www.enseignons.be/secondaire/preparations-34-mecanique-optique-relati... [2] In french. If you are interested, see http://www.enseignons.be/forum/ftopic5306-0-asc-20.php
While thinking about this question, if anyone has any suggestions for how to improve the GFDL, remember that the public consultation for the next version is ongoing:
Read about it here: http://gplv3.fsf.org/doclic-dd1-guide.html
And submit your comments here: http://gplv3.fsf.org/comments/gfdl-draft-1.html
Laurent moky.math@gmail.com wrote:
[...] do I violate my own FDL licence ?
A copyright holder is not bound by their own licence. As long as you have no upstream FDL content, you aren't violating the FDL.
- The second user case is much more trollful ... but it is truth. We
want to create collaborative physics and mathematics texbooks[2] [...]
FDL is a bit risky for general non-manual educational works anyway because it can be poison-pilled so easily. See http://mjr.towers.org.uk/blog/2006/fdl#general
In general, you would be better off asking licensing@fsf.org for advice.
Ciaran O'Riordan ciaran@fsfe.org wrote:
While thinking about this question, if anyone has any suggestions for how to improve the GFDL, remember that the public consultation for the next version is ongoing:
How about improving the consultation to allow public participation?
Read about it here: http://gplv3.fsf.org/doclic-dd1-guide.html
And submit your comments here: http://gplv3.fsf.org/comments/gfdl-draft-1.html
Select "search" from top of page, click "Search", get error message:
404 Not Found The requested URL /comments/readsay.html was not found on this server.
I've reported this bug so often (most recently [gnu.org #336650]) that it's no fun any more. It gets fixed for a while sometimes, then it regresses again.
If FSF were using free software in the GPLv3 sense - you know, with installation info - maybe this would have been debugged by now and the comment system would be a useful tool that was accessible-to-all and generally useful for online consultations. Instead, it's still an "entirely preliminary, undocumented, unsupported release" which requires an obsolete version of RT.
More generally, from the comment system's README:
The system is named "stet", after the proofreader's mark meaning "let it stand as it is".
Which is appropriate, as most comments which have been reported by others seem to have been answered with "we'll let it stand as it is".
The best thing which FSF could do with FDL is to release a bugfixed SFDL as FDLv2 and kill off the invariant sections that way.
Regards,