Re: Amendment: invariant-less in main (Re: GR Proposal: GFDL statement)
On Tue, Jan 10, 2006 at 04:55:43AM +0100, Adeodato Sim?? wrote:
> 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.
I personally object to this because I find actually what you call bugs
to be much more practical issues that the invariant sections because
they affect the Debian CD-ROM as a whole, while you can just ignore
non-modifiable documents even if they are in main.
I strongly support moving the GFDL document to non-free and provide
an extra iso-image with them.
Of course, the FSF has the option to release a GFDL 1.3 that address these
issue, and then we could take advantage of the upgrade clause.
(I would support an amendment hinting the FSF to release a fixed GFDL
if someone is smart enough to draft one, because this is clearly the best
solution for GFDL documents without non-Invariant Section.)
> 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.
I disagree that is is the most grave of these problems's.
> 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.
I don't find them minor at all.
> 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.
This affect the distribution of Debian iso images through encrypted
channel which is more and more frequent.
If the GFDL document where moved to non-free we could provide an extra
iso-image with all the GFDL document and only this iso image would be
restricted.
If that can help settle the issue, I volunteer helping building the
extra GFDL iso image.
> 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.
This might be fixable technically, but currently we are in violation
of this requirement, so we cannot legally ship GFDL documents anyway,
which make this whole GR moot.
This requirement is extremly costly for anyone attempting to distribute
Sarge either as a mirror or as an ISO image.
Cheers,
Bill.
Reply to: