Le Saturday 25 October 2008 18:36:33 Kalle Kivimaa, vous avez écrit : > Romain Beauxis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Since the licence comming with the pdf was, up to what I read and > > understand, compatible with DFSG, in particular right to reproduce, > > distribute and *modify*, I completely fails to see the motivations > > for such a decision. > > Let me quote the GR text: > > "In practice, then, documentation simply isn't different enough to > warrant different standards: we still wish to provide source code in > the same manner as for programs, we still wish to be able to modify > and reuse documentation in other documentation and programs as > conveniently as possible, and we wish to be able to provide our users > with exactly the documentation they want, without extraneous > materials. " > > As we don't accept program object code without source, we are not > accepting document binaries without source, either. For the motivation > behind the GR, read the various lists for that time, this was > discussed extensively back then.
Do you claim a PDF file is a binary file, or a program object ? Even if PDF was a programming language, as proposed in another anwser, it would fall into the script category, where the executed object is also the source. Furthermore, requirement to provide source code is a consequence of the requirement to be able to modify the program. Again, if I provide a manual for blind people consisting in a wav (or a ogg/vorbis) file, what kind of source would you ask for then ? Romain -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
