FDL requirements for original author
hwe at fsfe.org
Fri Feb 8 10:28:05 UTC 2008
> I think it would be better if the students get the LaTeX code
Of course it would! The question is *not* "should the tex come with
an FDL-pdf?" We all agree on that.
The question is: Given a dozen of simply formatted text documents,
given they'll all carry the same license, given most of them will but
a few will not come with the .tex, given the author wants anyone to
have the 4 freedoms (as conveniently as possible under this
restrictions), is it better to put "All rights reserved" (status quo),
a CC license or the FDL?
I think we've established legally FDL is possible. The remaining
controversy is about what is better morally.
One position is "if it's not ultimately free, dismiss it." (And some
count FDL as *non*free.) I rather support "make it as free as
possible. Then keep improving."
Besides, let's not forget that handing out printouts is perfectly fine
under FDL, since they're surely fewer than 100. (Anyone who thinks
this is wrong should comment the drafts for FDL2)
> Beside that PDF is listed as example for a transparent copy:
This would settle the issue! Thanks for pointing it out, I looked the
FDL up in RMS' book and there's only ver 1.1.
However, will pdflatex resp. dvi>ps>pdf give "PDF designed for
human modification" or "PDF produced by some word processors for
output purposes only"?
PS: What about the no-transparent-original question -- if its pdf
counts as opaque, eg. PowerPoint presentations can't be FDL'ed (unless
there're less than 100 copies).
More information about the Discussion