On Wed, Jan 11, 2006 at 09:53:43PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > On Fri, Jan 06, 2006 at 11:37:37AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > > So, I've updated the wiki [0] in response to most of the suggestions > > on the list so far. > Okay, given the lack of further response (except for dato's alternate > proposal!), I've tweaked the wording one more time, and I think this > is the final version. Seconds appreciated. > I propose the Debian project release the following statement on the GFDL: Seconded. Cheers, -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. vorlon@debian.org http://www.debian.org/ > ========================================================================= > > Why the GNU Free Documentation License is not suitable for Debian main > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Context > ------- > > 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 that it is not free enough for the Debian distribution. > > 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. Debian itself will > continue distributing GFDL documentation in its "non-free" section, > which does not have such strict requirements. > > This document covers the GFDL version 1.2, which is the most current > version at the time of writing. Earlier versions of the GFDL have similar, > related problems. > > 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. Notably, it is also used as Wikipedia's license. The GFDL is a > "copyleft" license in that modifications to documentation made under the > GFDL must in turn be released under the GFDL, not some more restrictive > license. > > How does the GFDL fail to meet Debian's standards for Free Software? > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > The GFDL conflicts with Debian's 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 GFDL documentation directly into free > software. > > The major conflicts are: > > Unmodifiable Sections > --------------------- > > The most troublesome conflict concerns the class of unmodifiable sections > that, once included, may not be modified or removed from the documentation > in the future. These are Cover Texts, Dedications, Acknowledgements, > and Invariant Sections. Modifiability is 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. > > These components create particular problems in reusing small portions of > the work (since any invariant sections must be included also, however > large), and in making sure that documentation remains accurate and > relevant. > > 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 be 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, > and that users need not be forced to obtain the source with every copy > of the binary they download, but this does not satisfy either clause of > the GFDL's requirements. > > 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 system that provides user restrictions or file permissions for > the documentation. > > Why does documentation need to be Free Software? > ------------------------------------------------ > > The question of "Why does software need free documentation?" has been > addressed in the past by the Free Software Foundation in the essay > _Free Software and Free Manuals_ [0]. > > [0] http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-doc.html > > 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. Even the line between what is documentation and what is > a program is not always so clear, as content from one is often needed > in the other (to provide online help, or to provide screenshots or > interactive tutorials, or 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, particularly for Debian's purposes, documentation > simply isn't different enough to warrant different standards in the > freedoms we expect for our users: we still wish to provide source code > in the same manner as for programs, we still wish to be able to modify > and update documentation, we still wish to be able to reuse portions of > documentation elsewhere as conveniently as possible, and we still wish > to be able to provide our users with exactly the documentation they want, > without extraneous materials. > > How can this be fixed? > ---------------------- > > What, then, can documentation authors and others do about this? > > An easy first step documentation authors can take toward resolving > the problems above is to not include any 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 unsuitable for Debian. As a consequence, > other licenses should be investigated; generally it is probably simplest > to use the same license for the documentation as for the software it > documents, or for documentation that doesn't come with a particular > piece of software, to choose either the GNU General Public License > (for a copyleft license) or one of 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 for a great many works by issuing a new version > of 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 > since 2001, these negotiations have not come to any conclusion to date. > =========================================================================
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature