On Sun, Apr 20, 2003 at 05:35:14AM +0300, Richard Braakman wrote: > -- would you prefer that they hadn't seconded the > proposal either? We could have had a nicely silent majority.
I don't really see much value in "me too" posts. We build consensus by
responding to criticism, and there hasn't been *any* internal criticism
of this stand since last November, when Branden found the FSF's responses
to the issues he and others had brought to the FSF's attention.
> > Debian's stance on the GNU Free Documentation License
> > ...OR NOT (completely unofficial, draft, blahblah)
> (Section I, 'Preserve the section entitled "History"', is also a candidate
> for this list.)
Is it? I couldn't see how it was much different to the GPL's "You must
cause the modified files to carry prominent notices stating that you
changed the files". I suppose having a History section like:
2003-05-01 Title: _GNU Manifesto_ Debian
(Extracted the GNU Manifesto from the GDB docs)
2003-04-28 Title: _GDB Documentation_ FSF
2003-04-12 Title: _GDB Documentation_ Debian
2003-04-11 Title: _GDB Documentation_ FSF
2003-04-01 Title: _GDB Documentation_ Debian
2003-03-20 Title: _GDB Documentation_ FSF
could get tiresome. Does that make it non-free, though? I can't see any
reason why it should.
There's been some question whether the front-cover texts are DFSG
free. Considering we accept the obnoxious advertising clause, I can't
see any reason for them not to be.
> I also have a list of other problems with the GFDL. They should
> probably all be listed together, though we may want to skip some
> as being too nitpicky.
I'd rather list them all in a comprehensive FAQ, and keep the statement
short and to the point -- if we're going to make statements on non-free
licenses that're commonly called and thought of as free, fair enough;
making statements about every seriously flawed license out there would
seem like a lot of effort. I'm happy to be shouted down, though.
> [1] I remember two in the GDB manual and one in the Emacs manual.
> (Un)fortunately these mistakes have been corrected and I no longer have
> the old versions around. Does anyone have references?
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/debian-legal-200112/msg00225.html
In particular: for emacs21, ``with the Invariant Sections being "The
GNU Manifesto", "Distribution" and "GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE"'', and
for gdb ``with the Invariant Sections being "A Sample GDB Session" and
"Free Software"'' and ``with the Invariant Sections being "Stabs Types"
and "Stabs Sections"''
A stronger argument can be made that not only is it easy to misapply,
but that it's harmful even when correctly applied: the wikipedia example
of the addition of invariant backlinks making the modifications unusable
for the original author; and the hypothetical example of random people
who don't have RMS's credibility attaching their own manifestos to
free software documentation as some weird unerasable graffiti are both
convincing to me. Are they convincing to anyone else? If so, would
someone else who's convinced like to pen a FAQ paragraph about it? Are
there any other examples?
Updated statement draft, and a draft FAQ attached, that should cover all
your comments that I didn't address in this mail.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
``Dear Anthony Towns: [...] Congratulations --
you are now certified as a Red Hat Certified Engineer!''
Debian's stance on the GNU Free Documentation License (2)
...OR NOT (completely unofficial, draft, blahblah)
24th April, 2003
In November 2002, version 1.2 of the GNU Free Documentation License (GNU
FDL) was released by the Free Software Foundation after a long period
of consultation. Unfortunately, some concerns raised by members of the
Debian Project were not addressed, and as such the GNU FDL can apply
to works that do not pass the Debian Free Software Guidelines (DFSG),
and may thus only be included in the non-free component of the Debian
archive, not the Debian distribution itself.
This document attempts to explain the reasoning behind this conclusion,
and offers some suggestions on how authors of free documentation may
avoid these problems.
The Problem
~~~~~~~~~~~
The GNU FDL includes a number of conditions, which apply to all modified
versions, that disallow modifications. In particular, these are:
* K. For any section Entitled "Acknowledgements" or "Dedications",
Preserve the Title of the section, and preserve in the section all
the substance and tone of each of the contributor acknowledgements
and/or dedications given therein.
* L. Preserve all the Invariant Sections of the Document, unaltered in
their text and in their titles. Section numbers or the equivalent
are not considered part of the section titles.
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, which unfortunately
includes a number of current manuals for GNU software.
The Solution
~~~~~~~~~~~~
There are a number of things that can be done to avoid this problem.
1) Avoid using the various options the GNU FDL allows.
If you do not make use of Invariant Sections, or include an
Acknowledgements or Dedication section, there are no problems with
your GNU FDL licensed document passing the DFSG. However, if someone
modifies your document, and adds an Invariant Section, the new document
will become "tainted" and can no longer be made to pass the DFSG.
2) Use an alternative copyleft license for your document.
The GNU General Public License is a good license for documentation
as well as software. It requires anyone who would want to do a print
run of your documentation to either include a CD of the text with the
book so anyone can modify it, or to include an offer to send copies
to anyone who asks at cost; and also requires the modifiable copy to
be in whichever transparent form was used to create the book originally.
3) Use a non-copyleft free license for your document.
Example licenses include the FreeBSD Documentation License, and common
software licenses such as the X11 license, or the updated BSD license.
4) Convince the FSF to change the GNU FDL to allow the removal of
unmodifiable sections.
While this does not prevent documents covered by the GNU FDL being
non-free by Debian's definition of the term, it allows us to remove the
non-free components (that by definition are irrelevant to the document),
leaving simply the DFSG-free manual itself.
More Information
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl.html
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl-1.2-comments.txt
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200211/msg00285.html
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200211/msg00287.html
http://www.debian.org/social_contract.html
*DRAFT*
Debian and GNU Free Documentation License FAQ (1)
*DRAFT*
What does it mean that this document is a draft?
It means it's not in its final form, that any or all of it may well
be incomplete, unbalanced, or inserted only as Devil's Advocacy
(which is to say wrong). Don't rely on it even as an indicator to
what Debian thinks, what its authors think, or what you should think.
It's the Debian Free _Software_ Guidelines, Stupid -- Why Apply Them to
Documentation?
This is a very fundamental question. Debian's decision is based
on some fundamental premises: we are, at our heart, an operating
system distribution, so we're interested in making a good operating
system that you can do a lot with far more than distributing every
possible essay someone may wish to read, or painting they might find
artistic. However, a good operating system must at least include
documentation of itself, and, at least within Debian, it's generally
felt that a good piece of code should be deserving of as much artistic
protection as a good piece of prose. As such, we have decided to draw
the same line between "free" and "non-free" for documentation as we
have drawn for programs: that which passes the DFSG can enter main
and be part of the Debian GNU/Linux Distribution, that which doesn't,
but is still redistributable, can enter non-free and thus still be
available to Debian users who might want it.
What About Unmodifiable Software Licenses Like the GNU GPL?
Many software licenses unfortunately disallow the creation ofderivative
works. The FSF give everyone permission to distribute verbatim
copies of the GPL, eg, but do not give you permission to take the
text of the GPL and change section (2(c)) to something you prefer,
and license your own works under this new GPL-based license. This,
clearly, does not pass the DFSG.
Debian does not generally apply the DFSG to the text of licenses
themselves, but rather to the software (programs, documentation,
artwork) they cover. In the past, Debian has similarly overlooked
applying the DFSG to documentation, but with the increasing focus on
providing good free documentation, this no longer seems appropriate.
Beyond allowing invariant sections, why does the GNU FDL suck?
It's easy to misapply the GNU FDL.
The GNU FDL says that only "Secondary Sections" (a term it defines)
may be marked Invariant, but does not say what should happen if a
section that is not Secondary is listed as an Invariant Section.
The FSF itself has made this mistake several times[1], so we know
it's an easy mistake to make.
Definition of "Transparent copy" is limiting
The GNU FDL defines the words "Transparent" and "Opaque" to
distinguish between source-like and object-like documents
(e.g. comparing LaTeX to PDF). Unfortunately, this definition
focuses on implementation rather than intent. It requires
that every component of a document is either text, or an image,
or a drawing. This leaves out for example sound files, which
can never be distributed as part of a document under the GNU FDL.
([Maybe insert rant about PostScript not being Opaque by definition.
In fact, PostScript is the perfect example for documentation ==
software.])
GNU FDL creates a wall between documentation and code
The GFDL is incompatible with the GPL, and many of its requirements
don't translate well to functional software. This makes it
difficult to embed such documents into a program, for example in
order to present on-line help. In the other direction, many documents
contain example code, sometimes sizeable chunks of it, which will be
unusable by default unless specifically licensed otherwise. Literate
programs included substantial amounts of documentation (usually design
documentation) in the code itself.
Obnoxious Accumulation of Cover Texts
Every contributor can add up to 5 words of Front-Cover Text and up to
25 words of Back-Cover Text. It won't take long before there is no
space for artwork on the front cover, just a dense list of short
texts.
([Nit: "The front cover must present the full title with all words
of the title equally prominent and visible". So no artistic license
allowed in title arrangement. "Nethack: Journey through the MAZES
of MENACE" is right out, especially if "MENACE" has little goblins
holding up the letters.])
The GNU FDL restricts the presentation of documents
(This is a general point, I'm not sure how to word it. We accept
many limitations in free software licenses, such as changelog
requirements, because they affect the source code but not the
object code. It's still possible to create whatever technical
effect is desired, even if manipulating the source can get a little
awkward. The GFDL, by contrast, makes nearly all of its demands
on the "object" of a document, not its source. For example, its
requirements for Front-Cover Texts are very similar to the Zope
and PHP-Nuke requirements that we have rejected as non-free. This
point is also the root problem of the reference-card scenario.)
Languages other than English are poorly supported
The GNU FDL defines special roles for several kinds of sections
(such as "History" and "Dedications"), but refers to these
sections by their names in English. A document under the GNU FDL
will have to include a section with the title "History", regardless
of the language it's written in.
Why are Unmodifiable Sections a Problem?
Outdated Invariant sections
Invariant Sections can become outdated, and there's no way to
update them. Even adding a note saying they're obsolete is
not allowed.
Obnoxious Accumulation of Invariant Sections
If two documents under the GNU FDL are reorganized (producing two
new documents with parts from each), then the Invariant Sections
from each of them have to be duplicated in both, except for sections
that are identical. If they differ (for example, both documents
have a "Distribution" section, but one has the old FSF address and
another has the new one), then both have to be included. This can
become unmanageable as documents evolve.
([This point might be subsumed under "Invariant Sections are bad",
and in any case we might not care because DFSG#4 allows something
similar. Do we care?])
Examples?
This means that you can't take the text of the GNU Manifesto from
one of the GNU FDL-licensed manuals that includes it and print it
on its own -- you have to include all the other invariant sections,
front cover texts and so forth as well.
It means that you can't include small portions of a manual, and print
it on a reference card, without also including the complete text of
arbitrarily large texts on the reference card.
It means that you have to include invariant texts which may actively
detract from the quality of your derivative work. Wikipedia and FOLDOC
experienced such a situation, where FOLDOC could not make use of some
changes Wikipedia made to FOLDOC's texs, because each such change
was tied to an invariant chunk of HTML that would have had to have
been included in FOLDOC's non-HTML dictionary. See:
http://www.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2002-June/002238.html
http://www.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2001-October/000624.html
One of the key points of copyleft is ensuring that if someone updates
a program, other people can take just the changes they consider useful
for their own use; the GNU FDL fails here.
Given the GNU Projects influence on Debian, shouldn't the GNU Manifesto
be included in the Debian GNU/Linux Distribution anyway?
Probably. Should we have a special DFSG exemption for doc-debian, and
include things like the GNU Manifesto (and "Why Free Software?" and
"Free Software needs Free Documentation" and whatever else) in there?
I think so.
Why does this document use various Capitalisation Styles?
Because you haven't edited it yet.
pgptwOTdJzezt.pgp
Description: PGP signature
