Thanks to Luk for setting things straight. I hereby second Dato's
proposal, which is included in full below.
also sprach Adeodato Simó <adeodato@debian.org> [2006.01.10.0455 +0100]:
> > 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»
--
Please do not send copies of list mail to me; I read the list!
.''`. martin f. krafft <madduck@debian.org>
: :' : proud Debian developer and author: http://debiansystem.info
`. `'`
`- Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing a system
Invalid/expired PGP (sub)keys? Use subkeys.pgp.net as keyserver!
"for nasa, space is still a high priority."
- george w. bush
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature (GPG/PGP)