The Grumpy Editor's guide to free documentation licenses [LWN.net]

The Grumpy Editor's guide to free documentation licenses

Posted Oct 27, 2004 19:02 UTC (Wed) by bfields (subscriber, #19510)
In reply to: The Grumpy Editor's guide to free documentation licenses by dlang
Parent article: The Grumpy Editor's guide to free documentation licenses

my point is that the prefered form for editing is going to be different for different people on the same document. it's a very nebulous term, far more so then for programs where there's a very obvious difference between source code and the binary result.

There are cases where it may not be clear which the preferred form is. There are also very common cases where it is quite clear (you probably don't hand-edit the postscript produced by latex/dvips or the average wordprocessor).

I'm having a hard time seeing how ambituity in the choice of preferred format is likely to cause a real problem in any case--the case we really want to prevent is someone modifying documentation and then claiming they only need provide you with some obfuscated version (nothing but the output of xfig->latex->dvips->ps2pdf for you!), in which case there's not really any ambiguity.

(Log in to post comments)

preferred form

Posted Oct 29, 2004 20:37 UTC (Fri) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link]

Yeah, I've always hated the "preferred form" standard.

What we really want is just to stop someone from withholding the source code that he has as a means of stopping others from building on his work.

The requirement should be that you have to make available what you worked with to make the file you distributed. If you typed in a .o file with a hex editor, the .o is all you have to provide. If you used a special in-house markup language that you machine-translated to latex and then to dvi and then to Postscript that you distribute, you should have to provide the in-house markup on request.