"Raul Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 3/21/06, Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Second off, you've not convinced me that the GFDL never allows > > > the use of word format (I'll grant that such allowance would come > > > with caveats about as strong as those necessary for your > > > example). > > > > I don't quite understand what you are saying here. Could you > > enumerate those caveats? > > No, there's too many potential cases for me to enumerate all > potential caveats. > > I can give you a simple example, however, of a case where > [with caveats] word format is suitable: some drawings could > be saved in some word format if the version of word in question is > widely available,
Why does it matter whether the version of word is widely available? > and if there is a command line program that > will convert those drawings to postscript. The ability to convert the drawing to postscript (which will probably be lossy) does not affect whether the original word format is "Transparent". > Another example where word format is ok to distribute > involves a simple word->xml->word translation facility > where both the word format and the xml format are > distributed. If you are distributing both, then the XML file is Transparent and the word file is opaque. My point was that the word file is never Transparent. I am not saying that the word file can not be distributed, but that it is never Transparent. > As an aside, I seem to remember a number of programs which > can deal with word format to varying degrees (three that come > to mind are catdoc (GPL), mswordview (GPL/LGPL) and openoffice > (PDL/LGPL), but I'm sure there are others). Only the last one can edit the file. The other two are lossy converters. And openoffice is definitely not a "generic text editor". Cheers, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]