Partly in response to RMS' recent comment (about Debian not having a position on the GFDL) I've taken a stab at putting together a sort of "position statement" on the GFDL for debian-legal. Debian proper may not yet have a position, but I think it's fair to say that debian-legal does, at least. I haven't tried to reproduce the arguments here[1], this just lists the things that make the GFDL non-DFSG-free.
[1] See Nathanael Nerode's "Why You Shouldn't Use the GNU FDL" at http://home.twcny.rr.com/nerode/neroden/fdl.html if you're interested in that. Or read the archives. :) --- *DRAFT* This is only a draft. *DRAFT* --- Problems with the GFDL After more than two years of discussion debian-legal has decided that the GFDL v1.2 does not meet the DFSG. We are hopeful that the issues discussed here can eventually be resolved, but we are forced to conclude that, at least for the moment, a work under the GFDL v1.2 is not free software. There problems with the GFDL fall under three headings. They are: A. The "DRM" restriction In section 2 the GFDL states: You may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the reading or further copying of the copies you make or distribute. This 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: I. It is not limited to the act of distribution (i.e., it applies to private copies as well). II. 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. B. Transparent and Opaque copies Under certain circumstances the document may not have a transparent version (for example, after being modified with a proprietary word processor). This would make it impossible to meet the requirements of section 3 ("Copying in quantity") of the GFDL. C. Invariant Sections Various parts of a work under the GFDL can be both unmodifiable and unremovable. These parts include: * Invariant Sections * Cover Texts * Acknowledgements * Dedications We believe that certain restrictions on modification do pass the DFSG. Such restrictions might include a requirement that the name be changed from the original when it is modified, or that a disclaimer be added (e.g., "This document does not necessarily represent the opinion of Mr. Foo"), or even that a changelog be kept. But in this case both the fact that these sections are entirely unmodifiable and that they are unremovable violate the DFSG. --- *DRAFT* This is only a draft. *DRAFT* --- Since IANADD, I wrote it in hopes that it might be useful -- perhaps it could be posted on the web, or used as the basis for a semi-official message to the FSF, or whatever. If people have any suggestions or changes they think should be made, I'd be happy to keep an up-to-date version for a while. Other than that, feel free to use it however you like. Can anyone suggest better wording anywhere? Are there any other issues we should include? Am I off-base in thinking this stuff is pretty established on debian-legal? The order is not accidental -- I've intentionally started with what I suspect will be the easiest stuff to resolve. -- Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
