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

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

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)

Reply to: