Open main menu

Do you really have to include the source code to be compliant with GFDL? — Omegatron 18:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know. The relevant section says:
A "Transparent" copy of the Document means a machine-readable copy, represented in a format whose specification is available to the general public, that is suitable for revising the document straightforwardly with generic text editors or (for images composed of pixels) generic paint programs or (for drawings) some widely available drawing editor, and that is suitable for input to text formatters or for automatic translation to a variety of formats suitable for input to text formatters. A copy made in an otherwise Transparent file format whose markup, or absence of markup, has been arranged to thwart or discourage subsequent modification by readers is not Transparent. An image format is not Transparent if used for any substantial amount of text. A copy that is not "Transparent" is called "Opaque".
Now, is it possible to "straightforwardly revise" the graph of a function if all one has is the SVG (or worse, PNG)? Probably not, but I don't know whether that makes it opaque. –EnEdC 00:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Probably be better to remove "to ensure compliance with free content licenses such as the GFDL". The stuff above does not apply to originals, but it seems to forbid making copies of text or figures by scanning, etcetera. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Return to "Source code please" page.