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

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



Le Jeu 12 Janvier 2006 22:28, Christopher Martin a écrit :
> I second the proposal quoted below.

and I do the same.

> On Tue, Jan 10, 2006 at 04:55:43AM +0100, Adeodato Simó wrote:
> > 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.

-- 
·O·  Pierre Habouzit
··O                                                madcoder@debian.org
OOO                                                http://www.madism.org

Attachment: pgpiM39twxrwE.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: