Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, 2003-09-18 at 16:05, Walter Landry wrote: > > > The definition of transparent is similar to, but not the same as > > source. For example, the "source" for a LyX document is not > > "transparent". > > I understand that; in fact, I was one of the many people who pointed out > that problem. But that's not what Brian said --- he said that there is a > violation of DFSG 2 "since it does not permit 'distribution in source > code as well as compiled form'." That's what I'd like a clarification > of.
I see what you're saying. Yes, Debian is allowed to distribute the source to GFDL'd licenses, as long as Debian has a transparent version as well. If Debian doesn't have a transparent version, then it can't distribute it at all. So DFSG #2 doesn't really come into play. It is more DFSG #1, because Debian can't distribute it at all, and DFSG #3, because modifications may make the result undistributable. Regards, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
