I second the proposal quoted below. I'm following debian-vote through the archives, so if you wish to reply or comment to me specifically, CC me.
Christopher Martin On Tue, Jan 10, 2006 at 04:55:43AM +0100, Adeodato Simó wrote: > Debian and the GNU Free Documentation License > ============================================= > > This is the position of Debian Project about the GNU Free Documentation > License as published by the Free Software Foundation: > > 1. We consider that the GNU Free Documentation License version 1.2 > conflicts with traditional requirements for free software in a > variety of ways, explained in detail in the "Problems of the GFDL" > section below. > > 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. > > 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. > > Formally, the Debian Project will include in the main section of > its distribution works licensed under the GNU Free Documentation > License that include no Invariant Sections, no Cover Texts, no > Acknowledgements, and no Dedications, unless permission to remove > them is granted. > > 3. Despite the compromise above, GFDL'd documentation is still not > free of trouble: as an example, it is incompatible with the major > free software licenses, which means that GFDL'd text can't be > incorporated into free programs. > > For this reason, we encourage documentation authors to license > their works (or dual-license, together with the GFDL) under a well > known free software license like the the GPL or the BSD license. > > > 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. > > 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. > > III. Invariant Sections > > This is the most troublesome part of the GFDL. > > The GNU FDL includes a number of conditions that apply to all > modified versions that disallow modifications. Specifically, Section > 4 of the GFDL describes the invariant sections that must be unaltered > in their text and in their titles in any derived works. These > invariant sections must be secondary sections; a secondary section > is a named appendix or a front-matter section of the Document that > deals exclusively with the relationship of the publishers or authors > of the Document to the Document's overall subject (or to related > matters) and contains nothing that could fall directly within that > overall subject. These parts include: > > * Invariant Sections > * Cover Texts > * Acknowledgements > * Dedications > > 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.
pgpNFDVlgDKDT.pgp
Description: PGP signature
