Martin Schulze wrote: > I wonder if all documents licensed under the GNU Free Documentation > License[1] are inherently non-free with regards to the Debian Free > Software Guidelines[2]. > > I thought that if no invariant sections were used the document would > still be considered free. However, if invariant sections were used > for anything other than the license, the document would become > non-free. Since we don't require licenses to be altered I guess that > the same would apply to an invariant section, I guess.
There's actually a nasty catch in that a license as an "Invariant Section" can't be removed even if it's not the license applied to the work. (For instance, a work might be licensed under the GFDL "version 1 or later", but with the GFDL version 1 as an "Invariant Section". If the FSF released the GFDL v. 4, the GFDL v. 1 would *still* have to be carried around as an Invariant Section.) So Invariant Sections can't be used for the license, either, in many cases, without rendering it DFSG-non-free. > There seems to be some confusion about whether the GNU FDL renders > every document non-free or only those that include invariant > sections. The result is that... er... I am confused as well... Every document. (Well, absent lots of additional permissions, of course, but the same could be said of any non-free license.) http://people.debian.org/~srivasta/Position_Statement.xhtml If the so-called "DRM restriction" problem were dealt with (by issuing an amended GFDL or making a specific exception) -- and the problems with transparent and opaque copies were cleared up (similarly) -- *then* a document under the GFDL could be free -- if it had no Invariant Sections *or* Cover Texts. As far as I can tell there has been precisely zero progress on an of these issues. :-P -- There are none so blind as those who will not see.
