-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Kalle Kivimaa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Proposal below seconded.
It seems that my Gnus settings do not work correctly for most people (including devotee), if I try to send out GPG'd ISO-8859-1 emails. This should be verifiable by all. Seconding the proposal below. >> ========================================================================= >> >> Why the GNU Free Documentation License is not suitable for Debian main >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Context >> ------- >> >> Within the Debian community there has been a significant amount of concern >> about the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL), and whether it is, in >> fact, a "free" license. This document attempts to explain why Debian's >> answer is that it is not free enough for the Debian distribution. >> >> It should be noted that this does not imply any hostility towards the >> Free Software Foundation, and does not mean that GFDL documentation >> should not be considered "free enough" by others. Debian itself will >> continue distributing GFDL documentation in its "non-free" section, >> which does not have such strict requirements. >> >> This document covers the GFDL version 1.2, which is the most current >> version at the time of writing. Earlier versions of the GFDL have similar, >> related problems. >> >> What is the GFDL? >> ----------------- >> >> The GFDL is a license written by the Free Software Foundation, who >> use it as a license for their own documentation and promote it to >> others. Notably, it is also used as Wikipedia's license. The GFDL is a >> "copyleft" license in that modifications to documentation made under the >> GFDL must in turn be released under the GFDL, not some more restrictive >> license. >> >> How does the GFDL fail to meet Debian's standards for Free Software? >> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> The GFDL conflicts with Debian's traditional requirements for free >> software in a variety of ways, some of which are expanded upon below. As >> a copyleft license, one of the consequences of this is that it is not >> possible to include content from GFDL documentation directly into free >> software. >> >> The major conflicts are: >> >> Unmodifiable Sections >> --------------------- >> >> The most troublesome conflict concerns the class of unmodifiable sections >> that, once included, may not be modified or removed from the documentation >> in the future. These are Cover Texts, Dedications, Acknowledgements, >> and Invariant Sections. Modifiability is a fundamental requirement of >> the DFSG, which states: >> >> 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. >> >> These components create particular problems in reusing small portions of >> the work (since any invariant sections must be included also, however >> large), and in making sure that documentation remains accurate and >> relevant. >> >> Transparent Copies >> ------------------ >> >> The second conflict is related to the GFDL's requirements for "transparent >> copies" of documentation (that is, a copy of the documentation in a form >> suitable for editing). In particular, Section 3 of the GFDL requires >> that a transparent copy of the documentation be included with every >> opaque copy distributed, or that a transparent copy be made available >> for a year after the opaque copies are no longer being distributed. >> >> For free software works, Debian expects that simply providing the source >> (or transparent copy) alongside derivative works will be sufficient, >> and that users need not be forced to obtain the source with every copy >> of the binary they download, but this does not satisfy either clause of >> the GFDL's requirements. >> >> Digital Rights Management >> ------------------------- >> >> The third conflict with the GFDL arises from the measures in Section 2 >> that attempt to overcome Digital Rights Management (DRM) technologies. In >> particular, the GFDL states that "You may not use technical measures >> to obstruct or control the reading or further copying of the copies you >> make or distribute". This inhibits freedom in three ways: it limits use >> of the documentation as well as distribution, by covering all copies >> made, as well as copies distributed; it rules out distributing copies >> on DRM-protected media, even if done in such a way as to give users >> full access to a transparent copy of the work; and, as written, it also >> potentially disallows encrypting the documentation, or even storing >> it on a system that provides user restrictions or file permissions for >> the documentation. >> >> Why does documentation need to be Free Software? >> ------------------------------------------------ >> >> The question of "Why does software need free documentation?" has been >> addressed in the past by the Free Software Foundation in the essay >> _Free Software and Free Manuals_ [0]. >> >> [0] http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-doc.html >> >> There are a number of obvious differences between programs and >> documentation that often inspire people to ask "why not simply have >> different standards for the two?" For example, books are often written >> by individuals, while programs are written by teams, so proper credit >> for a book might be more important than proper credit for a program. >> >> On the other hand, free software is often written by a single person, >> and free software documentation is often written by a larger group of >> contributors. Even the line between what is documentation and what is >> a program is not always so clear, as content from one is often needed >> in the other (to provide online help, or to provide screenshots or >> interactive tutorials, or to provide a more detailed explanation by >> quoting some of the source code). Similarly, while not all programs >> demonstrate creativity or could be considered "works of art", some can, >> and trying to determine which is the case for all the software in Debian >> would be a distraction from our goals. >> >> In practice, then, particularly for Debian's purposes, documentation >> simply isn't different enough to warrant different standards in the >> freedoms we expect for our users: we still wish to provide source code >> in the same manner as for programs, we still wish to be able to modify >> and update documentation, we still wish to be able to reuse portions of >> documentation elsewhere as conveniently as possible, and we still wish >> to be able to provide our users with exactly the documentation they want, >> without extraneous materials. >> >> How can this be fixed? >> ---------------------- >> >> What, then, can documentation authors and others do about this? >> >> An easy first step documentation authors can take toward resolving >> the problems above is to not include any invariant sections in your >> documentation, since they are not required by the license, but are simply >> an option open to authors. >> >> Unfortunately this alone is not enough, as other clauses of the GFDL >> render all GFDL documentation unsuitable for Debian. As a consequence, >> other licenses should be investigated; generally it is probably simplest >> to use the same license for the documentation as for the software it >> documents, or for documentation that doesn't come with a particular >> piece of software, to choose either the GNU General Public License >> (for a copyleft license) or one of the BSD or MIT licenses (for a >> non-copyleft license). >> >> As most GFDL documentation is made available under "the terms of the GNU >> Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published >> by the Free Software Foundation", the Free Software Foundation is able >> to remedy these problems for a great many works by issuing a new version >> of the license. The problems discussed above require relatively minor >> changes to the GFDL -- allowing invariant sections to be removed, allowing >> transparent copies to be made available concurrently, and moderating the >> restrictions on technical measures. Unfortunately, while members of the >> Debian Project have been in contact with the FSF about these concerns >> since 2001, these negotiations have not come to any conclusion to date. >> ========================================================================= >> >> Cheers, >> aj >> > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > - -- * Sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology (T.P) * * PGP public key available @ http://www.iki.fi/killer * -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.8 <http://mailcrypt.sourceforge.net/> iD4DBQFDxlnskuYKi19tgBURAv6pAJ9vdcaQUTXIxbwqjPEEwgEdKDq5mwCYhT8h IJK4D+bFqL+L8IotTRlprQ== =IMoK -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
