On Sun, Jan 01, 2006 at 03:02:04PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > Why the GNU Free Documentation License is not suitable for Debian main > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > (0) Summary > > Within the Debian community there has been a significant amount of concern > about the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL), and whether it is, in > fact, a "free" license. This document attempts to explain why Debian's > answer is "no". > > It should be noted that this does not imply any hostility towards the > Free Software Foundation, and does not mean that GFDL documentation > should not be considered "free enough" by others, and Debian itself will > continue distributing GFDL documentation in its "non-free" section. > > (1) What is the GFDL? > > The GFDL is a license written by the Free Software Foundation, who use > it as a license for their own documentation, and promote it to others. It > is also used as Wikipedia's license. To quote the GFDL's Preamble: > > The purpose of this License is to make a manual, textbook, > or other functional and useful document "free" in the sense of > freedom: to assure everyone the effective freedom to copy and > redistribute it, with or without modifying it, either commercially or > noncommercially. Secondarily, this License preserves for the author > and publisher a way to get credit for their work, while not being > considered responsible for modifications made by others. > > This License is a kind of "copyleft", which means that derivative > works of the document must themselves be free in the same sense. It > complements the GNU General Public License, which is a copyleft license > designed for free software. > > (2) How does it fail to meet Debian's standards for Free Software? > > The GFDL conflicts with traditional requirements for free software in > a variety of ways, some of which are expanded upon below. As a copyleft > license, one of the consequences of this is that it is not possible to > include content from a documention directly into free software under > the GFDL. > > The major conflicts are: > > (2.1) Invariant Sections > > The most troublesome conflict concerns the class of invariant sections > that, once included, may not be modified or removed from the documentation > in future. Modifiability is, however, a fundamental requirement of the > DFSG, which states: > > 3. Derived Works > > The license must allow modifications and derived works, and > must allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the > license of the original software. > > Invariant sections create particular problems in reusing small portions > of the work (since any invariant sections must be included also, > however large), and in making sure the documentation remains accurate > and relevant. > > (2.2) Transparent Copies > > The second conflict is related to the GFDL's requirements for "transparent > copies" of documentation (that is, a copy of the documentation in a form > suitable for editing). In particular, Section 3 of the GFDL requires > that a transparent copy of the documentation be included with every > opaque copy distributed, or that a transparent copy is made available > for a year after the opaque copies are no longer being distributed. > > For free software works, Debian expects that simply providing the source > (or transparent copy) alongside derivative works will be sufficient, > but this does not satisfy either clause of the GFDL's requirements. > > (2.3) Digital Rights Management > > The third conflict with the GFDL arises from the measures in Section 2 > that attempt to overcome Digital Rights Management (DRM) technologies. In > particular, the GFDL states that "You may not use technical measures > to obstruct or control the reading or further copying of the copies you > make or distribute". This inhibits freedom in three ways: it limits use > of the documentation as well as distribution, by covering all copies > made, as well as copies distributed; it rules out distributing copies > on DRM-protected media, even if done in such a way as to give users > full access to a transparent copy of the work; and, as written, it also > potentially disallows encrypting the documentation, or even storing it > on a filesystem that supports permissions. > > (3) Why does documentation need to be Free Software? > > There are a number of obvious differences between programs and > documentation that often inspire people to ask "why not simply have > different standards for the two?" For example, books are often written > by individuals, while programs are written by teams, so proper credit > for a book might be more important than proper credit for a program. > > On the other hand, free software is often written by a single person, > and free software documentation is often written by a larger group of > contributors. And the line between what is documentation and what is > a program is not always so clear either, as content from one is often > needed in the other (to provide online help, to provide screenshots or > interactive tutorials, to provide a more detailed explanation by quoting > some of the source code). Similarly, while not all programs demonstrate > creativity or could be considered "works of art", some can, and trying > to determine which is the case for all the software in Debian would be > a distraction from our goals. > > 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. > > (4) How can this be fixed? > > What, then, can documentation authors and others do about this? > > An easy first step is to not include the optional invariant sections in > your documentation, since they are not required by the license, but are > simply an option open to authors. > > Unfortunately this alone is not enough, as other clauses of the GFDL > render all GFDL documentation non-free. As a consequence, other licenses > should be investigated; generally it is probably simplest to choose > either the GNU General Public License (for a copyleft license) or the > BSD or MIT licenses (for a non-copyleft license). > > As most GFDL documentation is made available under "the terms of the GNU > Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published > by the Free Software Foundation", the Free Software Foundation is able > to remedy these problems by changing the license. The problems discussed > above require relatively minor changes to the GFDL -- allowing invariant > sections to be removed, allowing transparent copies to be made available > concurrently, and moderating the restrictions on technical measures. > Unfortunately, while members of the Debian Project have been in > contact with the FSF about these concerns for the past four years, > these negotiations have not come to any conclusion to date. > --- Seconded. Cheers, -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. vorlon@debian.org http://www.debian.org/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature