[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Amendment: invariant-less in main (Re: GR Proposal: GFDL statement)



[Apologies for the previous empty mail. Key hiccup.]

* Anthony Towns [Sun, 01 Jan 2006 15:02:04 +1000]:

> It's been six months since the social contract changes that forbid
> non-free documentation went into effect [0], and we're still distributing
> GFDLed stuff in unstable [1]. I think we should get serious about fixing
> that, and as part of that that we should release the following statement
> (or one like it) on the GFDL:

  I propose an amendment to this GR, consisting in replacing the
  existing text with the one below. I initially tried to follow
  Anthony's original text as close as possible, and just add a paragraph
  and reword a couple sentences, but I didn't quite like the result, so
  I ended up rewriting it; if somebody manages to fit point (2) below in
  the original text, be my guest. The section "Problems of the GFDL"
  comes straight away from Manoj's Draft Position Statement [1].

    [1] http://people.debian.org/~srivasta/Position_Statement.html

  As I expect that at least one of the seconds/proposer will object to
  this amendment (heh), I'm actively looking for seconds myself now.

  Thanks.

-----------------------------------8<-----------------------------------

Debian and the GNU Free Documentation License
=============================================

This is the position of Debian Project about the GNU Free Documentation
License as published by the Free Software Foundation:

  1. We consider that the GNU Free Documentation License version 1.2
     conflicts with traditional requirements for free software in a
     variety of ways, explained in detail in the "Problems of the GFDL"
     section below.

     The most grave of these problems are the so-called "invariant
     sections", which are non-removable, non-modifiable parts of the
     document that the GFDL allows in works under this license. However,
     modifiability is a fundamental requirement of the Debian Free
     Software Guidelines, so this restriction is not acceptable for us.

  2. We believe that works licensed under the GFDL that include no such
     unmodifiable sections do fully meet the spirit of the Debian Free
     Software Guidelines, and have a place in our distribution despite
     the other problems (minor, in comparison) that the GFDL has.

     Formally, the Debian Project will include in the main section of
     its distribution works licensed under the GNU Free Documentation
     License that include no Invariant Sections, no Cover Texts, no
     Acknowledgements, and no Dedications, unless permission to remove
     them is granted.

  3. Despite the compromise above, GFDL'd documentation is still not
     free of trouble: as an example, it is incompatible with the major
     free software licenses, which means that GFDL'd text can't be
     incorporated into free programs.

     For this reason, we encourage documentation authors to license
     their works (or dual-license, together with the GFDL) under a well
     known free software license like the the GPL or the BSD license.


Problems of the GFDL
--------------------

 I. The DRM Restriction

  Section 2 (Verbatim Copying) of the GFDL goes beyond the traditional
  source requirement in copyleft licenses in an important way: according
  to the GFDL no copy may ever be subject to "technical measures to
  obstruct or control" reading and copying. This means that: 
  
    (a) It is not limited to the act of distribution (i.e., it applies
      	to private copies as well). 

    (b) It rules out the possibility that a version be distributed on
      	some form of DRM media (for technical reasons, perhaps), even
	while providing source (i.e., a transparent copy) in an
	unencumbered way at the same time. 

    (c) As written, it would outlaw actions like changing the permission
      	of a copy of the document on your machine, storing it on an
	encrypted file system, distributing a copy over an encrypted
	link (Obstruct or control the reading is not clarified to apply
	merely to the recipient), or even storing it on a file-sharing
	system with non-world-readable permissions. 

  Consider that the GFDL currently prohibits distribution on DRM media,
  as compared to the GPL which requires distribution on non-DRM media.
  This is a serious additional restriction. 

 II. Transparent And Opaque Copies

  Section 3 (Copying in Quantity) of the GFDL states that it is not
  enough to just put a transparent copy of a document alongside with the
  opaque version when you are distributing it (which is all that you
  need to do for sources under the GPL, for example). Instead, the GFDL
  insists that you must somehow include a machine-readable Transparent
  copy (i.e., not allow the opaque form to be downloaded without the
  transparent form) or keep the transparent form available for download
  at a publicly accessible location for one year after the last
  distribution of the opaque form. 

  It is our belief that as long as you make the source and binaries
  available so that the users can see what's available and take what
  they want, you have done what is required of you. It is up to the user
  whether to download the transparent form.

  The requirements for redistributors should be to make sure the users
  can get the transparent form, not to force users to download the
  transparent form even if they don't want it. 

 III. Invariant Sections

  This is the most troublesome part of the GFDL.

   The GNU FDL includes a number of conditions that apply to all
   modified versions that disallow modifications. Specifically, Section
   4 of the GFDL describes the invariant sections that must be unaltered
   in their text and in their titles in any derived works. These
   invariant sections must be secondary sections; a secondary section
   is a named appendix or a front-matter section of the Document that
   deals exclusively with the relationship of the publishers or authors
   of the Document to the Document's overall subject (or to related
   matters) and contains nothing that could fall directly within that
   overall subject. These parts include: 

     * Invariant Sections
     * Cover Texts
     * Acknowledgements
     * Dedications

  However, modifiability is a fundamental requirement of the Debian Free
  Software Guidelines, which state: 

     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.
        
  As such, we cannot accept works that include "Invariant Sections" and
  similar unmodifiable components into our distribution.

----------------------------------->8-----------------------------------

-- 
Adeodato Simó                                     dato at net.com.org.es
Debian Developer                                  adeodato at debian.org
 
- Oh, George, you didn't jump into the river. How sensible of you!
                  -- Mrs Banks in «Mary Poppins»

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Reply to: