* Esteban Manchado Velázquez <zoso@debian.org> [2006-01-13 09:26]: > I second Adeodato Simó's amendment: I hereby second this proposal as well. > On Tue, Jan 10, 2006 at 04:55:43AM +0100, Adeodato Simó wrote: > > 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]. > > [...] > > -----------------------------------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----------------------------------- > > Regards, > > -- > Esteban Manchado Velázquez <zoso@debian.org> > EuropeSwPatentFree - http://EuropeSwPatentFree.hispalinux.es > Help spread it through the Net in signatures, webpages, whatever! -- Martin Michlmayr http://www.cyrius.com/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature