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:
pgp4HaDEFDeyK.pgp
Description: PGP signature