FDL requirements for original author

hwe 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"?

Thanks again,

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 mailing list