On Sun, Jan 01, 2006 at 03:02:04PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: >Bcc'ed to -project, -legal and -private; followups to -vote please. > >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: > >--- >Why the GNU Free Documentation License is not suitable for Debian main >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > >(0) Summary > >Within the Debian community there has been a significant amount of concern >about the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL), and whether it is, in >fact, a "free" license. This document attempts to explain why Debian's >answer is "no". > >It should be noted that this does not imply any hostility towards the >Free Software Foundation, and does not mean that GFDL documentation >should not be considered "free enough" by others, and Debian itself will >continue distributing GFDL documentation in its "non-free" section. > >(1) What is the GFDL? > >The GFDL is a license written by the Free Software Foundation, who use >it as a license for their own documentation, and promote it to others. It >is also used as Wikipedia's license. To quote the GFDL's Preamble: > > The purpose of this License is to make a manual, textbook, > or other functional and useful document "free" in the sense of > freedom: to assure everyone the effective freedom to copy and > redistribute it, with or without modifying it, either commercially or > noncommercially. Secondarily, this License preserves for the author > and publisher a way to get credit for their work, while not being > considered responsible for modifications made by others. > > This License is a kind of "copyleft", which means that derivative > works of the document must themselves be free in the same sense. It > complements the GNU General Public License, which is a copyleft license > designed for free software. > >(2) How does it fail to meet Debian's standards for Free Software? > >The GFDL conflicts with traditional requirements for free software in >a variety of ways, some of which are expanded upon below. As a copyleft >license, one of the consequences of this is that it is not possible to >include content from a documention directly into free software under >the GFDL. > >The major conflicts are: > >(2.1) Invariant Sections > >The most troublesome conflict concerns the class of invariant sections >that, once included, may not be modified or removed from the documentation >in future. Modifiability is, however, a fundamental requirement of the >DFSG, which states: > > 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. > >Invariant sections create particular problems in reusing small portions >of the work (since any invariant sections must be included also, >however large), and in making sure the documentation remains accurate >and relevant. > >(2.2) Transparent Copies > >The second conflict is related to the GFDL's requirements for "transparent >copies" of documentation (that is, a copy of the documentation in a form >suitable for editing). In particular, Section 3 of the GFDL requires >that a transparent copy of the documentation be included with every >opaque copy distributed, or that a transparent copy is made available >for a year after the opaque copies are no longer being distributed. > >For free software works, Debian expects that simply providing the source >(or transparent copy) alongside derivative works will be sufficient, >but this does not satisfy either clause of the GFDL's requirements. > >(2.3) Digital Rights Management > >The third conflict with the GFDL arises from the measures in Section 2 >that attempt to overcome Digital Rights Management (DRM) technologies. In >particular, the GFDL states that "You may not use technical measures >to obstruct or control the reading or further copying of the copies you >make or distribute". This inhibits freedom in three ways: it limits use >of the documentation as well as distribution, by covering all copies >made, as well as copies distributed; it rules out distributing copies >on DRM-protected media, even if done in such a way as to give users >full access to a transparent copy of the work; and, as written, it also >potentially disallows encrypting the documentation, or even storing it >on a filesystem that supports permissions. > >(3) Why does documentation need to be Free Software? > >There are a number of obvious differences between programs and >documentation that often inspire people to ask "why not simply have >different standards for the two?" For example, books are often written >by individuals, while programs are written by teams, so proper credit >for a book might be more important than proper credit for a program. > >On the other hand, free software is often written by a single person, >and free software documentation is often written by a larger group of >contributors. And the line between what is documentation and what is >a program is not always so clear either, as content from one is often >needed in the other (to provide online help, to provide screenshots or >interactive tutorials, to provide a more detailed explanation by quoting >some of the source code). Similarly, while not all programs demonstrate >creativity or could be considered "works of art", some can, and trying >to determine which is the case for all the software in Debian would be >a distraction from our goals. > >In practice, then, documentation simply isn't different enough to warrant >different standards: we still wish to provide source code in the same >manner as for programs, we still wish to be able to modify and reuse >documentation in other documentation and programs as conveniently as >possible, and we wish to be able to provide our users with exactly the >documentation they want, without extraneous materials. > >(4) How can this be fixed? > >What, then, can documentation authors and others do about this? > >An easy first step is to not include the optional invariant sections in >your documentation, since they are not required by the license, but are >simply an option open to authors. > >Unfortunately this alone is not enough, as other clauses of the GFDL >render all GFDL documentation non-free. As a consequence, other licenses >should be investigated; generally it is probably simplest to choose >either the GNU General Public License (for a copyleft license) or the >BSD or MIT licenses (for a non-copyleft license). > >As most GFDL documentation is made available under "the terms of the GNU >Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published >by the Free Software Foundation", the Free Software Foundation is able >to remedy these problems by changing the license. The problems discussed >above require relatively minor changes to the GFDL -- allowing invariant >sections to be removed, allowing transparent copies to be made available >concurrently, and moderating the restrictions on technical measures. >Unfortunately, while members of the Debian Project have been in >contact with the FSF about these concerns for the past four years, >these negotiations have not come to any conclusion to date. >--- > >It's based on Manoj's draft position statement [2] with some notable >changes (an explicit "why not just say docs != software" section, a >"how can this be fixed" section, a "what is the GFDL?" section, and >reordering the major problems). I've put the above draft on the wiki >[3] so people can tweak it. > >Cheers, >aj > >[0] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2005/06/msg00019.html >[1] http://bugs.debian.org/usertag:debian-release@lists.debian.org:gfdl >[2] http://people.debian.org/~srivasta/Position_Statement.html >[3] http://wiki.debian.org/GFDLPositionStatement Seconded. Aníbal Monsalve Salazar -- .''`. Debian GNU/Linux : :' : Free Operating System `. `' http://debian.org/ `- http://v7w.com/anibal
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature