Invariant Sections
noted by axonrg on 2006-09-27 at 07:21 EDT:Invariant sections break Freedom 1. They have no place in a copyleft license. They are as un-free as Creative Commons' ND licenses, only worse because they can be attached to copyleft work.
Please do not include Invariant Sections in this new version of the FDL.
I would also note that invariant sections also contradict the freedoms listed in your preamble. Please remove.noted by oliva on 2006-09-29 at 13:20 EDT:
I don't think the FSF is entitled to simply remove such a provision that was present in an earlier version of the same license. This would, in a certain sense, change the spirit of the license, which many who released their works under such provisions are likely to find unacceptable.
I feel that the right balance is being achieved by setting a clear escape path for works that do not contain invariant sections (the SFDL), which might then enable this version of the FDL to become mainly unused, or used only for works whose authors really care about Invariant Sections for whatever reason. The FSF might then even stop "maintaining" the FDL, and focus on SFDL, if that's what makes the most sense.
Thus, if the Work is in part a textbook of mathematics, an Ancillary Section may not explain any mathematics.
In works of opinion rather than technical works, Invariant Sections can clash with the content of the work, or cannot be used to offer opinions on the author's relation to the work. To use the examples from this section, Ancilliary Sections would be problematic for legal, commercial, philosophical, ethical or political works.
HTML, PostScript or PDF
This is a double standard. The image, sound and video formats are less readable than machine-generated PDF or PostScript. This places a burden on individuals who wish to make work Free but can only do so by exporting from un-Free formats programatically for example.
However, you may charge a fee in exchange for copies.
How much? Surely for an electronic copy the price should be limited similarly to the GPL.noted by dlarge on 2006-09-28 at 08:28 EDT:
noted by skquinn on 2006-10-14 at 06:40 EDT:There is no limit to how much you may charge for distributing copies of a program under the GPL. You can charge as little or as much as you like
There is a limit on charging for source code distribution though. The GPL, however, is designed for programs. It does work for other things, but there may not be a garentee it will function perfectly for different works.
It may be a good idea to have a limit in the FDL on what you can charge for a version of the work in a modifiable format. You could sell full price PDF and printed manuals while having decently priced TeX, HTML, text versions e.t.c.
Excellent point made by dlarge here. I concur.
GNU Wiki License
Creative Commons considered and discarded this idea. Wikis are not special cases, and should not be treated as such because of their popularity.noted by dipierro on 2006-09-26 at 21:13 EDT:
noted by greg on 2006-09-27 at 00:24 EDT:This was pretty clearly added to solve a single issue. Wikipedia wants to change the GFDL in certain ways that don't apply to anyone else. But it'd look funny if the license said "Wikipedia may relicense their work under the Wikipedia License", so the FSF lawyers decided to phrase it this way.
Pretty smart idea, if you ask me.
I couldn't agree more with the comment that Wikis are not special cases. Wikipedia, for example, is claimed to be 'highly collaborative' yet I have previously demonstrated that the vast majority of articles in it have been authored by no more people than any other document (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Articles_distinct.png). In any case, the new rules for excerpts in 6a. largely address the practical problem that faced Wiki articles, that they couldn't be excerpted in other media without an impractical effort.noted by kaldari on 2006-09-27 at 19:18 EDT:
Personally, I don't believe Wikipedia content belongs under a documentation license. The goals of the FSF/Open Source Movement and Wikipedia are quite different (though overlapping in some sense). The only reason the GFDL was chosen as the license for Wikipedia is that nothing better existed at the time. Wikipedia has been burdened under the GFDL since it's inception. Arguably, the changes introduced under GFDL2 would greatly alleviate this incompatibility, but is there really a good reason to force everything to fit into this one license? On the other hand, I'm interested to know what the interoperability issues would be between the two licenses. How compatible are they? Where can I find out more information about the Wiki license?noted by bernd on 2006-12-03 at 08:43 EST:
What happened to the idea of making the Creative Commons Attribution - ShareAlike License (cc-by-SA) compatible or interchangeable with the GFDL as proposed at the Wikimania-conference by Eben Moglen: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Document_Licenses_and_the_Future_of_Free_Culture ?????????
Instead of creating yet another Licence specifically for Wikis, wouldn't it be great to add a clause which allows the relicencing of GDFL content under the cc-by-SA licence?????????
If the Work has no Cover Texts and no Invariant Sections then you may relicense the Work under the GNU Simpler Free Documentation License.
noted by jamesgnz on 2006-11-14 at 07:34 EST:This reduces the harm of invariant sections to documents that start with them, but it would still be better not to have them.
The SFDL is clearer than the FDL and is more Free than the FDL, which contravenes the very freedoms it enumerates in its preamble. Please consider making the SDFL the only FDL.
This would be a clear act of bad faith, because it would not simply go against the FDL v1, but actually against authors' express wishes as supported by the FDL v1. It looks like the SFDL is the recommended upgrade path, but the FSF can't, in good faith, force it upon authors who have released documentation under the FDL with invariant sections.
GNU Wiki License
So what's "GNU Wiki License" anyway? Is this going to be published later?noted by igel on 2006-09-28 at 13:31 EDT:
The GNU Wiki Licence should be published first. Afterwards it should be discussed, if the license can be changed.
public,publicly
There should be a space after the comma.
Examples of transparent image formats include PNG, XCF and JPG.
I think raster formats such as the ones highlighted should be considered opaque if they were generated from a vector format, such as SVG.noted by warbo on 2006-09-29 at 09:57 EDT:
This can be taken much further, for instance XCF is a transparent form, but so is PNG and JPEG. Converting XCF to PNG loses a lot of formatting information (and any image information which has been manipulated through filters or is "covered" by another layer) and makes the only editing possible very basic and difficult (since the layers, masks, etc. are all gone) but seems to be perfectly valid with this license. Converting to JPEG is also valid, but then even image information is lost due to the lossy nature of the format, making editing even more difficult. Another example would be Ogg Vorbis, since it is transparent but not only does it lose any instrument information which was previously available in, say, a sound tracker program or the likes of Audacity and CuBase which is vital to properly editing it, but even the limited remixing and sampling possible without this information is dangerous since the Vorbis codec only includes those sounds which will be percieved in the file's original context. Once it is remixed that context changes and the quality drops dramatically since some of the removed sound information should now be audible but it is gone.
The current draft works well to ensure freedom to access information, but it seems like a lot more thinking is needed to make a non-software license which guarantees the same freedom to modify as the GPL does for software, probably because lossy formats are unheard of for software (except of course programs compiled into binary, but that is addressed)
Both covers
Is there really a need to have it on both covers? Won't one do?
proprietary
The meaning of "proprietary" should be clarified.
gratis
This should be like the GNU GPL, in which the source must be available for a cost no more than that of the binary (replace source with Transparent and binary with opaque of course).
Version 2
This version should be numbered 3 to show that it is part of the same package as GPLv3.noted by skquinn on 2007-03-31 at 15:02 EST:
If it's the second version of the GFDL, it's version 2. It's not version 3 just because it comes out at the same time as version 3 of something else.noted by mlinksva on 2007-11-23 at 16:09 EST:
I agree with skquinn, it should be v2.
plain ASCII
The term "plain ASCII" should not be used as a synonym for "plain text". In addition, a sentence such as "ASCII, Unicode, or any national or international standard character set may be used for textual content" should be added.
using a publicly available DTD or schema
Some XML formats inherently cannot be described by a DTD/schema, and the mere provision of one does not constitute Transparency; a patented schema would not be Transparent.
Rather, the requirement for Transparency should be for publicly available and unencumbered documentation of the format.
proprietary formats that can be read and edited only by proprietary word processors
Is Word 97 a Transparent format, given that it can be read and edited by the non-proprietary word processor OpenOffice.org version 2?noted by shirock on 2006-09-30 at 06:42 EDT:
It should ask the lawyers of Microsoft. The non-proprietary word processors just work compatibly with Word 97's documents. That does not mean the document format of Word 97 is transparent.
PDF designed for human modification
AFAIK PDF is never editable, except in the weak sense that pages may be removed and new ones inserted.
national
This should be "national or international".noted by jamesgnz on 2007-05-06 at 21:02 EDT:
Are there any restrictions on which nation can be used? e.g. Does it have to be an Fijian national agency? Or does it have to be the same nation within which you are conveying copies?
The front cover must clearly and unambiguously present the full title.
"present the full title, if the work has a title."
You may
What use is an anti-tech-measures clause that permits a distributo to make it very hard for a downstream user to execute their rights as opposed to it being illegal for them to do so? ... What use is an anti-tech-measures clause that permits circumvention if devices for circumvention might themselves be made illegal independent of the legal recourse directly available to the distributor? To me this seems like a major step back: Even the Creative Commons licenses provided stronger protection against technical measures. Have we given up entirely on defending against a future where devices encrypt content without their operators consent, and where all the common playback devices require such encryption, thus resulting in the right to publish to the public being controlled by the private groups that own the crypto? ... I saw resistance against that as a primary quality of the GFDL v1.2.
with access to formats which make that convenient to do
If, for example, a video file was created in Adobe Flash, would the transparent form be a Theora stream or the Flash project file? Would the Flash project file need to be distributed, like the GPL's "the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it", which would clearly be the ".fla" file. Personally I use Moho (it's name changed and no longer has a GNU/Linux port) and include the Moho project files along with any exported SWF or Theora content, and to keep the "source" available I use the GPL. (I also supply the GIMP XCF file for any PNGs I make)
20,000 characters
Since this section was ostensibly put in for the benefit of Wikipedia, let's look at the length of some Wikipedia articles: World War II: 102,571 chars Vietnam War: 142,958 chars Paleoconservatism: 190,236 chars Strategic Air Command wings: 252,638 chars Clearly 20,000 characters is not even close to being adequate since the idea here is that you could except a single Wikipedia article without having to include pages of licensing material.noted by kaldari on 2006-09-27 at 19:55 EDT:
I think 200,000 characters would be a more reasonable limit than 20,000 characters. An average Featured Article weighs in at about 50,000 characters and longer articles often exceed 100,000 characters. Alternately, a limit of 20,000 words rather than characters would be reasonable.noted by greg on 2006-10-09 at 17:24 EDT:
noted by kaldari on 2006-10-26 at 14:27 EDT:20,000 is enough to keep you from having to distribute a license which is much larger than the text. I think it's a reasonable comprimise. I wouldn't find an increase in the number too objectionable... but 20,000 should be enough. With the SFDL draft weighing in at around 2,800 words, the 20,000 threshold makes sure that the license will not be more than about 12% of the total... In any case I certantly don't see this as uniquely benifiting Wikipedia, it just makes sense to not have to attach a license which as as long as the text.
Nor do I see 20k words as a limit which would hurt Wikipedia: Most applications which which to excerpt from Wikipedia do not need to print entire 200K word articles. Also, your comment on length is somewhat misleading: the mean non-redirect page is about 3160 bytes of Wikitext.
Yes, but please notice that the current draft is 20,000 CHARACTERS, not words. I would also be fine with 20,000 words as you have suggested, but that is not what the current draft specifies.noted by kaldari on 2006-10-26 at 14:36 EDT:
Under the current draft (which is more than 20,000 characters long), the license could theoretically take up more than half the document. If we change the requirement to 200,000 characters, the license will never take up more than about 12% of the document.noted by geni on 2007-04-14 at 19:37 EDT:
longest wikipedia articles can be found at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Longpages
[8b. WIKI RELICENSING
What does it mean that this section is in brackets?
GNU Free Documentation License
It would be good for both the SFDL and the FDL to allow explicit relicensing of documents with no invariants to be under the GPL. This will be useful for any content or part of the content that can become the source code of a program.noted by warbo on 2006-09-29 at 09:19 EDT:
noted by jamesgnz on 2006-10-10 at 07:58 EDT:This would have to only apply to text (which is it's own source, unless fancy formatting is used), since images, videos, audio, etc. come with their own problems (XCF is the preffered format for editing in the GIMP since it keeps layers, masks, etc. seperate, so distributing a PNG exported from the GIMP without the XCF accompanying it would technically be a violation of the GPL). Since source code is text reffering to it in such an explicit way should not cause any problems.
How valid is it to include, for example, chunks of GPL code in a manual or guide licensed under the FDL?
noted by mikedlr on 2007-01-03 at 17:23 EST:/ This would have to only apply to text (which is it's own source, unless fancy formatting is used), since images, videos, audio, etc. come with their own problems /
Yes, there would be a potential problem if you were able to offer someone else the work under the GPL without accepting the GPL yourself. You would be bound by the laxer (S)FDL requirements for conveying source, whereas the conveyee would be bound by the more rigid GPL requirements, so you could distribute less than what the conveyee would require in order to further distribute (no source at all, under some circumstances, I think), effectively rendering the work non-free.
However this situation could be avoided if you were allowed to license the work under the GPL instead of (or in parallel to) the (S)FDL (assuming no invariant sections). In this case, if the source required for GPL distribution wasn't available, you would only be able to distribute under the (S)FDL anyway.
But there's no point in completely ruling out the possibility of distributing images, etc, under the GPL. If the source does happen to be available, there's no reason to forbid it.
/ How valid is it to include, for example, chunks of GPL code in a manual or guide licensed under the FDL? /
Small chunks could probably be included under fair use. Larger chunks, probably not.
how about simply limiting this to "source code" - any sections of computer program source code (as defined in the GPL v3) embedded in the document may be extracted and relicensed under the GPL version 3 or (at your option) later.noted by positron on 2007-08-26 at 09:07 EDT:
noted by kbissett on 2008-07-27 at 02:32 EDT:And I would even propose a stronger version of this suggestion: relicensing included source code (as defined in GPLv3) to GPL (and it should be specified which version) should be allowed *even* for documents with invariant sections: in this case the extracted source code could be required to do one of these: a) keep a comment with a link to the document with the invariant section. b) distribute the document along with the source code
Otherwise, it's also conceivable that the requirement to keep invariant sections could be lifted *just for this case*. Extracting source code is a very important case, and of course we're interested in it: let's not forget that a primary focus of this license is to serve as the licensing terms for *software manuals*, which of course contain code snippets which the users will want to reuse.
Moreover some invariant sections will be used in *many* manuals (and I agree with this idea): it's important that manuals with invariant sections can still be used as sources of example. It's a very natural use of them, and it would be really unfortunate if a free documentation license made it impossible.
I would like to see Code be freely transferable between GPL and GFDL. At the moment Wikipedia (GFDL) can't use GPLed programs as sources for tutorials, and GPLed programs can't use the Free code available in the GFDLed tutorials. You can't expect every Free Software creator and tutorial creator out there to dual-licence under the GFDL and GPL.
I don't believe either licence was intended to constrain Free code this way.
"Invariant Sections"
noted by kaldari on 2006-09-28 at 16:31 EDT:As I see it, invariant sections are required and very important. They have never subjugated freedom 1 or any other freedom.
You must understand that these sections are 'read only' ancillary sections. All of the limitations that apply to ancilliary sections, such as containing no technical information, applies to the invariant type.
These sections can not be used to declare a portion of a manual as read-only. They only protect details/writing that relates to the author(s) on a personal level. This information may describe the author as a person (such as qualifications and interests) and/or include their history on the subject as well as thier personal opinions.
This type of information is considered as only alterable by the author or suitably authorised persons. Invariant sections allow a legal protection on this writing. Unauthorised modification could be very damaging to the authors reputation. Would it be breaking freedom 1 if you were not allowed to modify the authors qualifications and swap their opinion for your own?
Would it be acceptable in society to allow people to change details on birth/death certificates without authorisation?
Imagine what insurace companies would say if we were to alter the terms and conditions of our policies!
We're talking about software documentation and Wikipedia articles here, not birth certificates and insurance contracts. Perhaps you could supply some more realistic examples for your argument.noted by shirock on 2006-09-30 at 06:16 EDT:
I agree dlarge's comment. For example, I write "I think this way is not good" in the ancillary section of my work. If that is not invariant, someone would have permission to change to "I think this way is good". It's wrong. Although we know it could do but should not do, we need invariant sections.noted by larhzu on 2006-09-30 at 10:26 EDT:
noted by shirock on 2006-10-01 at 19:50 EDT:I see nothing wrong in allowing short non-technical Ancillary Sections, that cannot be modified by anyone except the original authors of the Ancillary Sections. To preserve freedom, anyone must be allowed to remove these sections. This would be similar to Endorsements except that removing these read-only sections would not be mandatory.
Example of Invariant Section abuse
A person makes major improvements and very good additions to an existing manual, which is under FDL. To the end of the document, he adds an Invariant Section containing harsh words and misleading comments about the original authors of the document.
Users love the revised version of the manual, except that the new Invariant Section is very irritating. But the manual itself is so much better than the original one, that practically everyone is reading the new version of the manual.
A printing house would like to publish printed books of the revised manual. They are not willing to include the harsh Invariant Section, because they want to keep their reputation good. They cannot remove the Invariant Section, thus users never get a professionally printed copy the revised manual.
Something I known about GFDL may be incorrect. May I have some questions? If I use GFDL or GSFDL to my papers and reports (actually I did), could someone have permission to change my options in any section of my work? Should I not use GFDL or GSFDL to my papers and reports?noted by cyapp on 2006-10-03 at 19:38 EDT:
noted by kaol on 2006-12-08 at 12:46 EST:larhzu I think has the right idea. Any potential for allowing fixed non-removable content into a document is asking for trouble. Fixed content that is non-technical in nature I can see, but that content should be removable if it is no longer important relevant (documents change and mature with time).
If people are worried about opinions being distorted, why not make it a violation of the license to distribute a copy which intentionally misrepresents the views of others? This would be a big no-no anyway, wouldn't it? I would think that there would be some consequences other than just those provided by copyright if someone published an edited version of a document which mis-represented someone else's views - is that not true?
When Apple published their CDL, they didn't seem to see the need for such things: http://www.opensource.apple.com/cdl/ They just require a brief summary of how a modified version of a document is different from the original, if I understand things correctly.
noted by robmyers on 2007-07-11 at 05:31 EDT:If misattribution is the concern that invariant sections are trying to fix, why not just use GPG to sign what you have to say?
That's a perfectly good technical solution for this already.
noted by robmyers on 2007-07-11 at 05:35 EDT:"invariant sections are required and very important. They have never subjugated freedom 1 or any other freedom."
The freedom to modify a work is most certainly subjugated by the lack of freedom to modify a work whether in part or in whole.
"These sections can not be used to declare a portion of a manual as read-only. They only protect details/writing that relates to the author(s) on a personal level. This information may describe the author as a person (such as qualifications and interests) and/or include their history on the subject as well as thier personal opinions."
The FDL is not used only (or even mainly) for manuals. When the "manual" is a work of opinion or expression, unremovable un-editable sections of opinion become a problem. And even technical works should not be able to exact propagation of opinion from me as payment for using them.
If invariant sections could be removed that would be fine. I could remove any crap, and anyone else could remove my crap in turn.
Invariant sections cause too much collateral damage to justify the FSF's ability to attach the GNU manifesto to the Emacs manual.
"Would it be acceptable in society to allow people to change details on birth/death certificates without authorisation?"
Since this would be "technical information" in any FDL document, changing it would not be stopped by the FDL.
Invariant sections are adware and malware for discourse. They should be removed. Clearly identifying that a section of a work has been modified by a particular author should be enough to handle misattribution.
noted by manuel2 on 2007-09-27 at 13:49 EDT:"why not make it a violation of the license to distribute a copy which intentionally misrepresents the views of others?"
More specifically make it a violation to intentionally *misattribute quotes*. Views look different to different people and if the license is violated if someone just *claims* I have misrepresented their views this will be a very useful tool for censorship.
noted by einhverf on 2007-10-18 at 02:01 EDT:as far as i know, moral rights(authory related-not about work explotation way) under copyright law are already suposed to cover evil spoofing-modifications which could harm the author etc, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_rights .. it's worth a study.
People using licenses who let modify their opinion works should not suposed to be insane. Comedians do that allthetime. Authors could license their opinions with a 'all rights reserved' in the 'mainly' fdl work. Think about calling it gdl instead if shipping nds,
noted by einhverf on 2007-10-18 at 22:49 EDT:I think we should remember that the sole reason for invariant sections was to allow RMS to FORCE the distribution of the GNU Manifesto with the EMACS manual. Thus this exists solely to be abused to the detriment of GNU and the FSF.
The basic problem is that forced speech is the anathema of free speech, which RMS wants to associate with free software. Combining this with the 2003 forced resignation of Thomas Bushness from HURD over Mr Bushnell's unwillingness to support having invariant sections classified as Free by Debian, I fear greatly for both the FSF and for the GNU project.
I guess I would support a crompromise where invariant sections could be removed or preserved as a whole but could not be altered. These should not be used for forced advocacy (for example making the GNU Manifesto an invariant section of technical documentation).
with access to formats which make that convenient to do.
Requiring access to a format that makes changing the work "convenient to do" seems weak, a lot weaker than the transparent definition within the license. This clause of freedom 1 should be stronger as in the free software freedoms, requiring access to a form of the work practical or typical for making modifications.noted by axonrg on 2006-09-29 at 05:53 EDT:
In fact, why does this not read "access to formats in the preferred form for making modifications" which is in-line with the definition of source code from the GPL?noted by warbo on 2006-10-01 at 15:01 EDT:
The big hurdle with this example is the fact that Flash project files are not a transparent format in the current definition, but they are the preferred form for making modifications. Would such a change allow proprietary, secret formats to flourish within FDL licensed files?
generally available
I don't believe general availability should be a factor. Maybe "unencumbered" or "void of licensing requirements" and "unencrypted" or... something more precise.noted by warbo on 2006-10-01 at 15:13 EDT:
Encryption is the only real technical struggle to implementing a format. Other than that it is relatively straightforward to reverse engineer files, the only remaining issue being legal complexities (why many GNU/Linux distros don't include some codecs even though they are 100% Free Software).
The "unencumbered" and "void of licensing requirements" terms you suggest are the kind of thing needed to address this, but encryption is not always a bad thing. If someone wants to send, say, FDL licensed articles, blogs, encyclopedia entries, etc. to someone in a country with an oppressive government then encryption is a must. Even allowing encryption as an opaque format would require an unencrypted format to be sent alongside, which defeats the point of the encryption. Would it be possible to specify some kind of clause requiring the inclusion of needed keys along with the work, and since it will only be going to one person then they already have the needed private key to decrypt it so no key proliferation is needed (or will this cause a massive web-wide flame war?)
provided that this License, the copyright notices, and the license notice saying this License applies to the Work are reproduced in all copies
noted by theplaz on 2006-09-28 at 21:22 EDT:This clause is a burden to minor works. Every time I distribute even one line of GPL code, I need to also add 7 pages of text. This is OK for downloaded packages, but is bad for web services (do we need to download 1KB of this text almost no one sees every time some one visits a site running GPLed code?). However, it is most burdensome in printed documents. Why, if I print one line of code or a picture, etc, I also need to print 7 pages of this licence? This is a big burden especially on documentation.
I believe there should be a clause saying that minor works could just link to or mention the GPL. Everyone is software and copyright (the ones who care about it) know what the GPL is. Do they really need 7 pages of text per printout? Especially in this Internet age, a link should suffice.
-Michael Plasmeier
I see now, section 6a addresses this already. Sorry about that.noted by theplaz on 2006-09-28 at 21:34 EDT:
I see now, section 6a addresses this already. Sorry about that. Maybe a reference in here to 6a??
same name
The definition of Invariant Section uses section title as opposed to section name, is the use of section name here on purpose?
We might want to introduce a distiction to keep the extra numbering introduced during combination in one but not in the other, as in a separate comment I'm about to submit.
If there are multiple Invariant Sections with the same name but different contents, make the title of each such section unique by adding a unique number at the end.
Consider that works A and B were combined to form C. Both A and B had an invariant section X with different contents, so C has X 1 and X 2.
I want to combine C with yet another work D, which also has an invariant section X.
In this case, the license appears to state that I ought to leave D's invariant section X alone, while it appears to me that it would be appropriate to number it say X 3.
Or, for a "bigger" problem, consider that E is also a combined work with invariant sections X 1 and X 2, all different from C's X 1 and X 2. Must the invariant sections of a combination of C and E contain invariant sections X 1 1, X 1 2, X 2 1 and X 2 2? Or could we perhaps regard these extra numbers as not part of the section title, but as part of the section name, and then state that, if the *titles* are the same, then you must *name* the sections as the title followed by a unique number, such that a combination of C and E would have X 1, X 2, X 3 and X 4.
multiple identical Invariant Sections may be replaced with a single copy
What if Invariant Sections have the same contents but different title? I'm particularly concerned about title differences introduced by the renumbering in the following sentence, but other variations might be interesting to investigate as well.
Include an unaltered copy of this License.
Is more easy to release a new work under a Cretive Commons license (like S.A. versions) because this point. A CC license need only a small summary (the "Creative Commons Deed"), not the full text of the license. Please review this point! Is really stressing to release a small 'zine under GFDL, the license uses more pages thant the original work!
Include
Is more easy to release a new work under a Cretive Commons license (like S.A. versions) because this point. A CC license need only a small summary (the "Creative Commons Deed"), not the full text of the license. Please review this point! Is really stressing to release a small 'zine under GFDL, the license uses more pages thant the original work!
Addendum below
See SDFL comment 1933. http://gplv3.fsf.org/comments/rt/summarydecision.html?filename=&id=1933
Include, immediately after the copyright notices, a license notice giving the public permission to use the Modified Version under the terms of this License, in the form shown in the Addendum below.
See SDFL comment 1934. http://gplv3.fsf.org/comments/rt/summarydecision.html?filename=&id=1934
Include an unaltered copy of this License.
See SDFL comment 1935. http://gplv3.fsf.org/comments/rt/summarydecision.html?filename=&id=1935
Such a section may not be included in the Modified Version.
Umm... Not true. A modified version may have such a section, as explained later in the section.
The only kind of work for which this should not be used is software.
noted by skquinn on 2006-10-14 at 06:33 EDT:In literate programming (in the Knuth sense) source code and documentation are woven into a single document. How then should this be handled in the case of GPL/GFDL software? In this type of work the document (or parts of it) is also the code.
Let's say I have some source code for a GNU program, and a manual for that same program. I wish to combine both into a literate document in the TeX tradition - how could I do this legally? The GPL doesn't permit additional restrictions, but the GFDL has invariant sections - even if there are none initially, this could change in theory. Does this mean that I cannot have GPL code in a GFDL document?
You could license the whole thing under the GPL, unless I am missing something.noted by jamesgnz on 2006-11-14 at 07:23 EST:
/ Does this mean that I cannot have GPL code in a GFDL document? /
You can't take an (S)FDL-licensed work and incorporate it into a GPL-licensed work. The (S)FDL licenses are GPL incompatible.
/ You could license the whole thing under the GPL, unless I am missing something. /
Yes, if you'd written it yourself you could do this. Otherwise you'd be stuffed.
This is related to Comment 1893.
to use the Work under the conditions stated herein.
Authors of creative works can be legally entitled to certain "moral rights." Different countries have different rules. These rights are separate from copyrights. At the same time, these rights may disallow certain reuses of a work, among other things. When the author of a GFDL-covered work is entitled to moral rights, could this interfere with the rights of other users under the GFDL?
for the duration of the copyright on the Work,
Consider the situation where the copyright on a GFDL-covered work expires. In this case, anyone could then exploit the work as they pleased. (It might still be possible to restrict the work using clickwrap licenses and/or technological measures.) Should the relevant passage in the GFDL be more clear about this?noted by pedroros on 2006-10-16 at 00:04 EDT:
Why should we be concerned if the copyright of the FDL-covered work expires? Copyright is never for its own sake, it is a means to an end: to stimulate the arts and science. The destiny of every work (whether covered by the FDL, the GPL, or any other free licenses) is for it to enter into the public domain, so that people are free to use it creatively in every way they please. If we begin to hack the public domain, we defeat our own cause, that is, that every information be free to the public. People might say: "Well... at least, if we avoid the work entering into the public domain, then it would still be under the FDL"... But what happens with all the works under traditional copyright? No one has access to them. The FDL tries to hack copyright law in order to make the information available to the public and make possible any kind of modification for what the public needs, but the FDL is not an end in itself. We must defend always the public domain.noted by chesky on 2007-07-10 at 13:26 EDT:
How can a copyright license possibly affect a work whose copyright has expired?noted by jbuck on 2008-02-15 at 19:24 EST:
When the copyright expires, the work enters the public domain. This is not a bug, it is a feature. Worrying about clickwrap is pointless, as there will be other unrestricted copies around.
for the duration of the copyright on the Work,
Consider the situation where the copyright on a GFDL-covered work expires. In this case, anyone could then exploit the work as they pleased. (It might still be possible to restrict the work using clickwrap licenses and/or technological measures.) Should the relevant passage in the GFDL be more clear about this?
BASIC PERMISSIONS
It might be a good idea for the GFDL to mention the "fair use" provision of US copyright law. This provision does not necessarily exist outside the USA. In countries other than the USA, there is usually a similar but not identical legal provision such as "fair dealing." This international difference should be taken into account.noted by sjn on 2006-11-28 at 11:43 EST:
I think the effort that's been done to word the GPLv3 in a juristiction-agnostic way (make the wording general enough to work well in any juristiction) also should be done for the GFDL. Adding text about "fair use" would in that case work against this goal.
I'm not a US citizen, and would rather see that the GFDL can work as a legal document in my juristiction than having to "translate" it by my self (and thereby having to make my own license which would make possibly make it incompatible with the GFDL or at least make my text much more inconvenient to use together with other GFDL licensed works.)
(And on a side note, mezzanine, what's the point in restating your own opinion several times? Doing so certainly doesn't make it more valid!)
BASIC PERMISSIONS
It might be a good idea for the GFDL to mention the "fair use" provision of US copyright law. This provision does not necessarily exist outside the USA. In countries other than the USA, there is usually a similar but not identical legal provision such as "fair dealing." This international difference should be taken into account.noted by mezzanine1 on 2006-10-06 at 00:47 EDT:
It might be a good idea for the GFDL to mention the "fair use" provision of US copyright law. This provision does not necessarily exist outside the USA. In countries other than the USA, there is usually a similar but not identical legal provision such as "fair dealing." This international difference should be taken into account.
BASIC PERMISSIONS
It might be a good idea for the GFDL to mention the "fair use" provision of US copyright law. This provision does not necessarily exist outside the USA. In countries other than the USA, there is usually a similar but not identical legal provision such as "fair dealing." This international difference should be taken into account.
BASIC PERMISSIONS
It might be a good idea for the GFDL to mention the "fair use" provision of US copyright law. This provision does not necessarily exist outside the USA. In countries other than the USA, there is usually a similar but not identical legal provision such as "fair dealing." This international difference should be taken into account.
BASIC PERMISSIONS
It might be a good idea for the GFDL to mention the "fair use" provision of US copyright law. This provision does not necessarily exist outside the USA. In countries other than the USA, there is usually a similar but not identical legal provision such as "fair dealing." This international difference should be taken into account.
BASIC PERMISSIONS
It might be a good idea for the GFDL to mention the "fair use" provision of US copyright law. This provision does not necessarily exist outside the USA. In countries other than the USA, there is usually a similar but not identical legal provision such as "fair dealing." This international difference should be taken into account.
BASIC PERMISSIONS
It might be a good idea for the GFDL to mention the "fair use" provision of US copyright law. This provision does not necessarily exist outside the USA. In countries other than the USA, there is usually a similar but not identical legal provision such as "fair dealing." This international difference should be taken into account.
BASIC PERMISSIONS
It might be a good idea for the GFDL to mention the "fair use" provision of US copyright law. This provision does not necessarily exist outside the USA. In countries other than the USA, there is usually a similar but not identical legal provision such as "fair dealing." This international difference should be taken into account.
BASIC PERMISSIONS
It might be a good idea for the GFDL to mention the "fair use" provision of US copyright law. This provision does not necessarily exist outside the USA. In countries other than the USA, there is usually a similar but not identical legal provision such as "fair dealing." This international difference should be taken into account.
BASIC PERMISSIONS
It might be a good idea for the GFDL to mention the "fair use" provision of US copyright law. This provision does not necessarily exist outside the USA. In countries other than the USA, there is usually a similar but not identical legal provision such as "fair dealing." This international difference should be taken into account.
BASIC PERMISSIONS
It might be a good idea for the GFDL to mention the "fair use" provision of US copyright law. This provision does not necessarily exist outside the USA. In countries other than the USA, there is usually a similar but not identical legal provision such as "fair dealing." This international difference should be taken into account.
to use the Work under the conditions stated herein.
Authors of creative works can be legally entitled to certain "moral rights." Different countries have different rules. These rights are separate from copyrights. At the same time, these rights may disallow certain reuses of a work, among other things. When the author of a GFDL-covered work is entitled to moral rights, could this interfere with the rights of other users under the GFDL?
for the duration of the copyright on the Work,
Consider the situation where the copyright on a GFDL-covered work expires. In this case, anyone could then exploit the work as they pleased. (It might still be possible to restrict the work using clickwrap licenses and/or technological measures.) Should the relevant passage in the GFDL be more clear about this?noted by josefa on 2006-10-28 at 15:13 EDT:
If this license has expiry conditions tied to the expiry of traditional copyright, this might be considered incentive to reduce overall copyright terms to some. In other words, the greater the value of intellectual property under a free license, the greater the impetus to tackle the issue of copyright terms by those who favour non-free licensing terms or who find disadvantage in the free license.
BASIC PERMISSIONS
It might be a good idea for the GFDL to mention the "fair use" provision of US copyright law. This provision does not necessarily exist outside the USA. In countries other than the USA, there is usually a similar but not identical legal provision such as "fair dealing." This international difference should be taken into account.
GNU Wiki License.]
Instead than creating a new incompatible Licence, it would be better to have a paragraph that deals with how to deal with edits from a wiki or simular technologies (e.g. open (instant, unmoderated) edit/contribution access).
using a publicly available DTD or schema,
s/available/available, non-patent-encumbered/
Examples of transparent video formats include MPEG2 and Ogg Theora.
MPEG2 is not really designed for modification; Ogg Theora probably isn't either. IMO, the best example of a transparent video format would be something like DV or MNG.noted by skquinn on 2007-03-31 at 15:05 EST:
Actually, some forms of Dirac (in whatever container) would be considered transparent as well.
BASIC PERMISSIONS
It might be a good idea for the GFDL to mention the "fair use" provision of US copyright law. This provision does not necessarily exist outside the USA. In countries other than the USA, there is usually a similar but not identical legal provision such as "fair dealing." This international difference should be taken into account.
BASIC PERMISSIONS
It might be a good idea for the GFDL to mention the "fair use" provision of US copyright law. This provision does not necessarily exist outside the USA. In countries other than the USA, there is usually a similar but not identical legal provision such as "fair dealing." This international difference should be taken into account.
GNU Wiki License
(posted 21 October 2006) I'd be interested if there is any more news on this, or a draft for comment. Thanks :)
GNU Wiki License.
This is a good idea because otherwise the requirements in 4J make printing work sourced from a wiki impossible.noted by robmyers on 2006-11-28 at 09:53 EST:
The wiki simply needs to not designate a history section. It can call its history pages "changelogs" to avoid accidentally triggering 4J. Note that the authors section only requires that 5 authors be credited, which helps with Wikis. Possibly people could agree to credit the wiki rather than themselves? This was put into the CC licenses but I didn't like it and I don't think many people have used it. But it's worth considering as part of a legal toolkit if not as part of a license.
Preserve the network location
What, if the link is known to be broken? What if the content was changed to something unrelated? The original author might not have access to that address anymore. -- AKFoersternoted by positron on 2007-08-26 at 08:43 EDT:
Yes, it should be explicitly clarified what happens with broken links or lost access.
from the same place
Mandating that a place providing GFDL-licensed printed materials also have what in practise means some form of computing capability raises the barrier to distribution of GFDL materials for the content provider while trying to create a level of equivalence in access to the opaque and transparent copy from the perspective of the consumer.
I wish to preserve the idea of keeping facile access to transparent copies while ensuring that just about any hole in the wall can be an outlet for GFDL'ed content. May I suggest the following wording:
"When you convey the Opaque copies by offering access to copy from a designated place, you must offer equivalent access to copy the Transparent version either from the same place. If facilities at the place where the Opaque copy is offered do not permit offering machine-readable a copy, you have the responsibility to provide an alternate means of obtaining the Transparent copy which carries as little overhead as getting the Transparent copy from the same place as the Opaque copy."
Practical note: I do FOSS advocacy in Egypt; a lot of small photocopy boutiques would fail the licensing requirements without amodification like this.
with access to formats which make that convenient to do.
So, here's a fun idea.
rephrasing, "... with access to formats which can be controlled entirely using tools falling under an OSI-approved license."
The issue is with the word 'convenient'. It might be convenient to edit source code in IDE FOO, but it might also cost 5 million dollars. The proposed phrasing has the disadvantage that it renders a more convoluted passage, but it does guarantee a distinct lack of shenanigans.
The freedom to change the work, with access to formats which make that convenient to do.
"The freedom to change the content of the work, with access to formats which are editable using tools falling under OSI-approved licenses, and where these formats are free of legal restrictions on use."
The difference here is that we are being more specific about what it means for the work to be conveniently editable. It may be convenient to provide project source files which are used by IDE $FOO, but $FOO may cost 5 million dollars which means that the barriers to access are high. With this phrasing, we lose license readability though. Additionally, this phrasing specifies that the file format itself be free.
Preserve the network location
What, if the link is known to be broken? What if the content was changed to something unrelated? The original author might not have access to that address anymore. -- AKFoerster
Preserve the network location
What, if the link is known to be broken? What if the content was changed to something unrelated? The original author might not have access to that address anymore. -- AKFoerster
Preserve the network location
What, if the link is known to be broken? What if the content was changed to something unrelated? The original author might not have access to that address anymore. -- AKFoerster
Preserve the network location
What, if the link is known to be broken? What if the content was changed to something unrelated? The original author might not have access to that address anymore. -- AKFoerster
Preserve the network location
What, if the link is known to be broken? What if the content was changed to something unrelated? The original author might not have access to that address anymore. -- AKFoerster
Preserve the network location
What, if the link is known to be broken? What if the content was changed to something unrelated? The original author might not have access to that address anymore. -- AKFoerster
to use the Work under the conditions stated herein.
It might be a good idea for the GFDL to mention the "fair use" provision of US copyright law. This provision does not necessarily exist outside the USA. In countries other than the USA, there is usually a similar but not identical legal provision such as "fair dealing." This international difference should be taken into account.
GNU Free Documentation License
Why don't you call it "GNU Free Document License"?noted by sjn on 2006-11-28 at 09:22 EST:
I would like to use it for my stories, songs and poems, but they definitely aren't documentation, just as teh wikipedia articles aren't documentation, but they are documents.
Is there some special reason to call it documentation license instead of "document" license?
noted by ArneBab on 2006-12-03 at 20:30 EST:As far as I've understood, it's because works licensed under the "GNU Free Documentation License" sometimes have the term «...or any later version of the GFDL» allowing the work to make use of the improvements in the newer v ersion of the license without having to relicense the work entirely.
Lawyers are a bit picky about definitions, and by staying with the same name (however lacking it may be) I assume one avoids a lot of unnecessary hassle with those lawyers. :-)
Good to know...noted by emvigo on 2007-06-17 at 10:31 EDT:
But strange...
Thanks for the info!
I *use* GFDL on my stories and haven't thought about this...
the four essential freedoms:
It might be a good idea for the GFDL to mention the "fair use" provision of US copyright law. This provision does not necessarily exist outside the USA. In countries other than the USA, there is usually a similar but not identical legal provision such as "fair dealing." This international difference should be taken into account.
The freedom to change the work,
Authors of creative works can be legally entitled to certain "moral rights." Different countries have different rules. These rights are separate from copyrights. At the same time, these rights may disallow certain reuses of a work, among other things. When the author of a GFDL-covered work is entitled to moral rights, could this interfere with the rights of other users under the GFDL?
0. WHAT THIS LICENSE DOES
Rename this section to "Preamble", and remove the section number, to be consistent with the GPLv3.
1a. BASIC PERMISSIONS
This section does not actually cover basic permissions like personal use and "fair use", as the section with the same name in the GPLv3 does. "Basic Permissions" is an inaccurate name for this section, it would be better called "Accepting the License", or similar. Rename this section, and give it a seperate top level number (not 1a).
Also "Section 9. Termination" should be incorporated as a subsection of this section, since grant of license and termination of license are a logical grouping.
And having said that this section does not cover "Basic Permissions", there is actually no section in this license that covers basic permissions. Section 2 allows verbatim propagation, but does not loosen restrictions for personal use (not conveying), and Section 4 allows conveying modified works (and not other forms of propogating at all). This means that there is actually no provision for privately /creating/ derivitive works. And it may also make it illegal to view electronic works, if a computer automatically partially caches such in the process of displaying them. Create a new section titled "Basic Permissions" beneith this section in order to address basic permissions.
If you convey Opaque copies of the Work numbering more than 100, you must also convey a corresponding machine-readable Transparent version.
This paragraph is essentially the equivilant of the "Conveying Non-Source Forms" section from the GPL. To be consistent with the GPL, place this in a seperate section near the end.
Also to be included in the new section is the last paragraph of the current Section 2: "You may publically perform the Work..."
6. COLLECTIONS
A "collection" appears to simply be a special case of an "aggregation", where the aggregation consists only of works under the FDL. This case does not seem seperate enough to warrant a different term. It seems to me that using a different term will only cause confusion.
RELICENSING
noted by positron on 2007-08-26 at 08:38 EDT:In a similar vein, it should be possible to relicense the work under the GNU General Public License version 3, or any later version.
This would be benefitial for programs which interact deeply with information licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License (at the moment, if such a program were considered derived from the data, then there is no way to satisfy both licenses).
Additionally, the compatibility would be good as code could be copied from documentation into code.
I *strongly* agree with this suggestion. I think that all the copyrightable code included in a GFDL document should be covered by the GPL *by default*, to enhance compatibility. Another solution, maybe preferrable, would be to make the included copyrightable code *public domain* by default. This would ensure GPL compatibility, which of course should be a primary concern for the FSF.noted by positron on 2007-08-26 at 08:39 EDT:
I *strongly* agree with this suggestion. I think that all the copyrightable code included in a GFDL document should be covered by the GPL *by default*, to enhance compatibility. Another solution, maybe preferrable, would be to make the included copyrightable code *public domain* by default. This would ensure GPL compatibility, which of course should be a primary concern for the FSF.
with access to formats which make that convenient to do.
The second part of the sentence (after the comma) is not clear IMHO, which can also be seen in the comments about it. What is the intention here..? That documentation be written in open formats? That documentation can be changed using free software tolls? Other? Thanks for clarifying that.
The only kind of work for which this should not be used is software.
Why not addnig a half-sentence explaining WHY it should not be used for software?noted by sjn on 2006-11-28 at 09:57 EST:
Even better, say a few words on what the essence of the diffence between works of different kinds (at least in their textual form) that can be authored using a (public) collaborative process, and software (at least in it's source code form) that can be authored using a (public) collaborative process.
contains nothing that could fall directly within that overall subject
noted by Garrett on 2007-02-09 at 18:34 EST:For political writing or works of opinion, the relationship of the author to the subject, or their audience, is part of the body of the work. Allowing such core material to be placed in an invariant section allows the body of the work to be made invariant. This is an exploit.
Please remove Invariant sections, which harm the very freedoms the FDL is designed to protect.
While I agree about removing Invariant Sections from a purely "moral" perspective, I don't think it's possible: GFDL 1.2 works are allowed to (and often do) state they are released "under ... Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation" (see 1.2's clause 10, "FUTURE REVISIONS OF THIS LICENSE"); This clause automatically migrates those works to any new, official version of the GFDL, so I don't think it's possible for any future version to disallow material that falls under that previous clause. Strong forwards- and backwards-compatibility is an important factor of any copyleft license.
It is partly because of this that the GNU Simpler Free Documentation License is being drafted; in its current incarnation it disallows Invariant Sections as well as Cover Texts, two of the GFDL's most criticised features.
A Front-Cover Text may be at most 5 words, and a Back-Cover Text may be at most 25 words
The limits given here ("A Front-Cover Text may be at most 5 words, and a Back-Cover Text may be at most 25 words.") seem arbitrary and need at least some sort of explanation. What's the point in limiting the number of words in the back and front cover texts, when it's more likely that aesthetics or physical size of the printed medium may limit it - perhaps to some intirely different number?
This limit is IMO pointless as it stands, and should either be deleted or have it's purpose stated explicitly.
The "Cover Texts" are certain short passages of text that are listed, as Front-Cover Texts or Back-Cover Texts
Thsi is an advertising clause. Combining multiple works with such advertising clauses could result in a work with covers consisting entirely of advertisements!
GNU Wiki License.]
Is this some complicated means to make the GFDL more compatible with the Creative Commons BY-SA licence as discussed by Eben Moglen and Lawrence Lessig at the Wikimania conference? At least I hope those compatibility ideas were not just emtpy words! (see http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Document_Licenses_and_the_Future_of_Free_Culture)noted by bjwebb on 2006-12-17 at 14:55 EST:
Has any progress been made by the FSF in making the two licenses more compatible.
Examples of suitable formats for Transparent copies of textual works include
Examples of suitable formats for Transparent copies of textual works include
Examples of suitable formats for Transparent copies of textual works include
Examples of suitable formats for Transparent copies of textual works include
Examples of suitable formats for Transparent copies of textual works include
Examples of suitable formats for Transparent copies of textual works include
Examples of suitable formats for Transparent copies of textual works include
Examples of suitable formats for Transparent copies of textual works include
Use in the Title Page (and on the covers, if any) a title distinct from that of the Work,
Does this mean that the title must be changed even by the original authors if even typos are to be corrected? There are many other cases in which a work is revised but remains essentially the same work. The need is for proper attribution that tells the reader what the relation is between the modified and original work. The current prescription (A) is too narrow to accomplish this.
Examples of suitable formats for Transparent copies of textual works include
Examples of suitable formats for Transparent copies of textual works include
Examples of suitable formats for Transparent copies of textual works include
Examples of suitable formats for Transparent copies of textual works include
Examples of suitable formats for Transparent copies of textual works include
The purpose of this License is to make a work of authorship free
noted by larhzu on 2006-12-24 at 13:16 EST:There was no need for the GNU Free Documentation License in the first place: when the first version of the GFDL was published, the GNU GPL v2 was already suitable for making a work of authorship free. Writing a separate, incompatible, license only helped to balkanize the Free Software community: license proliferation is bad and should be avoided as much as possible. This move was a mistake made by the FSF and should be fixed as soon as possible.
Now that the GFDL exists, the only ways to correct the mistake that I can imagine are the following ones: * the FSF avoids publishing a new version of the GFDL, stops recommending/promoting it, and relicenses the GNU manuals under the GNU GPL * the FSF publishes version 2 of the GFDL with an explicit conversion-to-GPL clause that permits relicensing of GFDLed works under the GNU GPL, and stops recommending the adoption of the GFDL
noted by frx on 2006-12-27 at 09:05 EST:While I agree that FDL is unneeded complexity, there are some cases where FDL seems to protect freedom slightly better than GPL. For example, if a multilayer image created with the GIMP is released under FDL, you cannot convert the image to a proprietary file format and distribute the resulting file as "transparent copy of the work".
To my understanding, if the image is under GPL, you can convert it to proprietary format and claim that the new file is the source code as long as the the new format supports layers and other relevant features. Support for multiple layers and other relevant features is required to satisfy the requirement of "preferred form of the work to make modifications to it". (Comparison to programs: you could port a program written in C to Java even when there was no free Java implementation.)
Anyway, I think that having a separate license for documentation causes much more problems than it solves. This is especially the case with such a complex license as FDL.
larhzu: Regarding the transparent format constraints, you yourself note that the GNU GPL has no equivalent requirement to never convert source into a form that depends on proprietary tools. While it's of course undesireable for a work to require proprietary tools in order to be modified (or even used), I personally think that this should _not_ be forbidden by its license.
Hence, I think that the GPL is better than the GFDL even in this respect.
human appreciation, rather than machine execution
This distinction between "human appreciation" and "machine execution" is really meaningless and should be avoided. There are many cases where a work is meant for both "human appreciation" and "machine execution": think about literate programming (in the TeX sense), documentation extracted from specially crafted comments (for instance with Doxygen), documents written in PostScript (which is actually a full-featured programming language), SID tunes (which, AFAIK, are music files that consist of code executed by the SID chip, or by a suitable emulator).
A good license should be recommendable for any work of authorship, be it program code, documentation, audio, video, literature, journalism, and so forth, or even more than one of the above at the same time! A bad license should instead be avoided for everything.
the Work
Using the neutral term "Work" is a good thing to do: it avoids misleading people into thinking that a license can be applied to one category of works only. I wish the FSF did the same in the GNU GPL v3 (as I said when I commented on the GPLv3 drafts).noted by manuel2 on 2007-10-24 at 06:41 EDT:
Artistic & literary works are the category of the subcategory documentation in copyright law and software is in another category , no? I like documentation as a sinonim of artistic & literary for the name of the license but lacks of consistency of defining "works" asociated to literary and artistic in the license text.. instead of the actual ambiguous: 'works are not just documents'
A work "based on" another work means any modified version for which permission is necessary under applicable copyright law
Improvement: as I said for the second draft of GPLv3, it's good that now the definition of "based on" exploits applicable copyright law. This helps to ensure that the license does not place restrictions on activities that do not require permission under applicable copyright law.
To "convey" a work means any kind of propagation that enables other parties to make or receive copies, excluding sublicensing
The definitions of "propagate" and "convey" are very similar to the ones found in the second draft of GPLv3. They seem fairly clear and their linking to copyright law helps to ensure that the license does not place restrictions on activities that do not require permission under applicable copyright law.
contains nothing that could fall directly within that overall subject
This definition is troublesome, because what is an "Ancillary Section" in a work could easily become non-ancillary in a modified version of the work (whose main topic could well change and become the one treated in that section!). This interacts badly with "Invariant Sections", as defined in the next paragraph: in a nutshell, I cannot derive a work D that treats topic T from a GFDLed work W that has an Invariant Section about T. This problem existed in GFDL v1.2, as well, and is well described in this message by Rick Moen[1].
[1] http://lists.tldp.org/index.cgi?1:mss:6986:200404:jicghldafngijibhnajo
Invariant Sections
I strongly disapprove of the very idea of allowing unmodifiable and unremovable parts ("Invariant Sections") in a license that claims to have the purpose "to make a work of authorship free". Unmodifiable parts have no place in a free work. Neither have unremovable parts.
The reason is stated in the very GFDL draft I'm commenting: in Section 0. the "four essential freedoms" are summarized and the fourth is "The freedom to distribute modified versions". Modifiability is a key concept for a work to be Free.
There of course can be some restrictions on modification that don't make the work non-free: for instance the requirement to keep proper copyright and permission notices, or to maintain a reasonable log of changes applied to the work, ... But "Invariant Sections" go far beyond, being parts of the work that cannot ever be modified, nor removed. Both these constraints (unmodifiability and unremovability) are non-free restrictions.
Cover Texts
I object to "Cover Texts" for very similar reasons as outlined for "Invariant Sections". Basically, they are unmodifiable and unremovable parts: they consequently have no place in a free work.
A "Transparent" copy of the Work means
The definition of "Transparent" copy is improved with respect to GFDL 1.2, but it's still suboptimal, IMO. In some cases, we could end up in a situation where no "Transparent" version of the work exist anymore (for instance, after modifying the work with a proprietary word processor that saves in a closed-spec format): at that point it would become impossible to comply with the requirement of section 3. (COPYING IN QUANTITY).
I think that what is really needed to be able to exercise the freedom to modify the work is the "preferred form for making modifications". In other words: we have a good definition of source code in the GPL text; why creating a different definition here?
I suggest dropping the "Transparent"/"Opaque" distinction and adopting the "Source"/"Object" one, as in the GPL text.
Examples of suitable formats for Transparent copies
noted by manuel2 on 2007-10-24 at 06:45 EDT:I'm not sure that listing a series of concrete examples of "Transparent" and "Opaque" formats is a good idea.
It may easily be misleading. Imagine someone that actually modifies images in SVG format, but distributes them in PNG format: I don't think he/she would be acting fair, but nonetheless, he/she could claim being in compliance with the license, as its very text states that PNG is a "transparent image format".
Moreover, it may soon become outdated: some of the mentioned formats could be considered obsolete in the near future and new formats will be defined. In other words, this paragraph could rapidly become less and less useful...
and adding an url where to find all the suitable formats? There are a couple of urls bundled already in the license text.. so why not this new url which will give it a very nice look-ligthen-give consistency and dinamism and etcs to the text?noted by frx on 2007-12-01 at 07:42 EST:
manuel2: an external list of formats would be even worse, since the meaning of the license could then change in time in an arbitrary and unpredictable way.
provided that this License, the copyright notices, and the license notice saying this License applies to the Work are reproduced in all copies
Being forced to include the license text *in* the Work is an inconvenience and could in some cases be very unpractical, if not worse. The GPL has a looser requirement, as it allows giving the license text *along* with the Work, rather than forcing the inclusion *into* the Work. I think that the same should be allowed for the GFDL.noted by geni on 2007-04-14 at 19:24 EDT:
images are a real problem there is no way to create picture postcards useing a GFDL image. CC's URL aproach would probably be good here.
You may not apply technical measures to obstruct or control the use or further copying of any copies you make or distribute, by those to whom they may be distributed
The anti-DRM clause is a bit improved, but needs some further work to be a free restriction.
I think that the current language is unclear: "by those to whom they may be distributed" fails to really qualify the people who could perform the use or further copying that cannot be obstructed or controlled. Assume that I downloaded a GFDLed work and I decide to distribute it to some people that pay me a fee in exchange for copies (this is allowed by the very next sentence of the license): I perform this distribution through an encrypted channel (HTTP over TLS, say). The encrypted channel could well be seen as a technical measure to obstruct the use of copies I distribute, by third non-paying parties. Are those third non-paying parties people to whom the copies *may* be distributed? I would say yes, because I *might* distribute the copies to them as well, *if* I wanted to. Hence, it seems I would be violating the license in this scenario. I hope that's not intended.
Moreover "make or distribute" implies that even copies that I only make, but not distribute, are in the scope of this clause: this should *not* be the case! Assume I downloaded a GFDLed work and I decide to make some backup copies on encrypted filesystems, or even on unencrypted directories that are not world-readable. The encrypted filesystem or the Unix file permissions could well be seen as technical measures to obstruct the use or further copying of those backup copies I made, by people to whom the copies *may* be distributed (that is to say, by anyone else, since I *might* distribute those copies to anyone I like to). Hence, once more it seems I would be violating the license. Again, I hope that's not intended.
Finally, DRM should be disallowed only when it actually harms by denying the full exercise of the permissions granted by the license. Hence, distributing a GFDLed work through DRMed media or channels should be allowed in some cases: for instance, when an *un*encumbered copy is made available as well (in parallel), provided that this is enough to re-enable the full exercise of the legal rights granted by the license.
BTW, why have the denationalized terms ("convey", "propagate") vanished in this clause?
I suggest rephrasing the anti-DRM clause in a different way, by modelling it after the GPLv3draft2 formulation.
Proposed text: "Regardless of any other provision of this License, no permission is given for modes of conveying that deny users that receive the Work the full exercise of the legal rights granted by this License."
Both covers must also clearly and legibly identify you as the publisher of these copies
This clause seems to forbid anonymous publication of a work. If the restriction on covers requires an actual name (and a pseudonym or the term "anonymous" are not enough), then the license fails to give the important freedom to exercise the granted rights while remaining anonymous.
When you convey the Opaque copies by offering access to copy from a designated place, you must offer equivalent access to copy the Transparent version from the same place
Great improvement: allowing this is really important! With this language, I don't have to force users to download the Transparent copy, if they don't want to get it, and this is really good.noted by moky on 2007-09-18 at 15:03 EDT:
For me the term "Place" is not so clear. Does it include internet ? Following the comment of frx, I suppose that the answer is yes. In other places of the licence, the term "computer-network location" is explicitely used. Why not here ?
, in the form shown in the Addendum below
Since the new FSF policy seems to be that instructions on how to use licenses are not anymore attached to license texts, but hosted elsewhere, I think that mentioning an "Addendum" confuses the reader.
I think that ", in the form shown in the Addendum below" should be dropped entirely.
Include an unaltered copy of this License
As I said elsewhere, being forced to include the license text *in* the Work is an inconvenience and could in some cases be very unpractical, if not worse. For some kinds of work, it could even be impossible (think about an audio file, for instance).
Proposed text: "Accompany the Modified Version with an unaltered copy of this License."
new authors, and publisher of the Modified Version
Items B., D. and J. seem to forbid anonymous modifications to a work. If the restrictions on the Title Page and the History require an actual name (and a pseudonym or the term "anonymous" are not enough), then the license fails to give the important freedom to exercise the granted rights while remaining anonymous.
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
noted by manuel2 on 2007-10-24 at 06:51 EDT:Item L. restricts the freedom to modify to the work, and hence make it non-free. Such restrictions have no place in a license that claims to have the purpose "to make a work of authorship free".
I recommend dropping any special restriction for sections Entitled "Acknowledgements" or "Dedications".
agree with the recomendation, what for needing to keep them? optional is not enough cos complexesbloats it by having to draw the line on when it is considered a change enough to need to have it removed With remove endorsements(and treat dedications as those) is ok already. You could always licenses the dedications to your work under another license.
Preserve all the Invariant Sections of the Work, unaltered in their text and in their titles
As I already stated elsewhere, I strongly disapprove of the very idea of allowing unmodifiable and unremovable parts ("Invariant Sections") in a license that claims to have the purpose "to make a work of authorship free". Unmodifiable parts have no place in a free work. Neither have unremovable parts.
Besides the philosophical issues, "Invariant Sections" also pose serious practical problems.
Whenever one wants to take a significant part of a GFDLed work and incorporate it into a another work, every and each "Invariant Section" must be carried on too; even when the part is short compared with the "Invariant Sections". Hence, I cannot incorporate text from a GFDLed document encumbered with "Invariant Sections" into a free program, while obtaining a free modified program. This is not a license incompatibility: it holds *whichever* license the free program is released under!
Moreover, "Invariant Sections" cannot be updated, nor substituted with rewritten versions. This is troublesome, because the licensee is forced to retain parts that may become inaccurate, obsolete, inappropriate, overly long (even when space is at a premium, such as in a reference card adaptation of the work), untranlated in the appropriate language.
Please note that this holds for other unmodifiable and unremovable parts, too.
I see that section 6a. (EXCERPTS) below seems to address the reference card issue: unfortunately special-casing short excerpts (with a hard-coded upper limit in length) is not the appropriate strategy to cure the problem, IMO (especially since there's no upper limit for the length or number of "Invariant Sections", and hence there may well be cases where the total length of the material to be retained is still problematic even if the excerpt is longer than 20000 characters or 12 printed pages).
Do not retitle any existing section to be Entitled "Endorsements" or to conflict in title with any Invariant Section
Item O. restricts the modifiability of the work, since it forbids changing section titles so that they become Entitled in some manners. Forbidding possibly appropriate titles is a non-free restriction.
For instance, what if a section talks about endorsements? Why cannot it be Entitled "Endorsements"?
I suggest dropping restrictions on section titles entirely.
If the Modified Version includes Ancillary Sections that contain no material copied from the Work, you may at your option designate some or all of these sections as invariant
Suppose a work is published under the terms of the GFDL, without any "Invariant Section". Anyone can take the work, modify it by adding some "Invariant Section" and redistribute the modified version. Allowing the inclusion of unmodifiable and unremovable content has no place in a license that claims to be "a kind of copyleft".
You may add a section Entitled "Endorsements", provided it contains nothing but endorsements of your Modified Version
This clause restricts the modifiability of the work, since it forbids adding a section Entitled "Endorsements", if it contains anything other than endorsements of the Modified Version. What if the added section actually talks about endorsements, rather than containing endorsements? Forbidding possibly appropriate titles or content is a non-free restriction.
I suggest dropping restrictions on the content of a section Entitled "Endorsements". Proposed text: "You may add endorsements of your Modified Version by various parties"
You may add a passage of up to five words as a Front-Cover Text, and a passage of up to 25 words as a Back-Cover Text, to the end of the list of Cover Texts in the Modified Version
As for "Invariant Sections", anyone can take a GFDLed work that was published with no "Cover Texts", modify it by adding a "Front-Cover Text" and/or a "Back-Cover Text" and redistribute the modified version. Allowing the inclusion of unmodifiable and unremovable content has no place in a license that claims to be "a kind of copyleft".noted by jbuck on 2008-02-15 at 19:34 EST:
noted by frx on 2008-02-18 at 16:40 EST:I suggest that this section be modified to say that Cover Texts can be added only if Cover Texts already exist.
Otherwise the potential for misuse is huge. Some evil person could serve as an editor, collecting many contributions to a programming manual, and then attach a Front-Cover Text that says "Stallman [imagine insulting statement here]". Then no one can use the improvements to the document in any way without agreeing to publish the insulting statement.
There are two outs: either abandon the whole concept, or restrict it to apply only to documents that already have cover texts.
jbuck: I, of course, vote for the first option ("abandon the whole concept" of Front/Back-Cover Text, and in general of unmodifiable and unremovable content)...
AGGREGATION WITH INDEPENDENT WORKS
This section seems to be drafted with U.S. centric terminology in mind. For instance, what happened to the term "based on", as defined in section 1.?
I suggest rephrasing this section in a more denationalized form.
you may include translations of some or all Invariant Sections in addition to the original versions of these Invariant Sections
This is yet another practical problem with "Invariant Sections": rules for translation encourage the addition of more and more "Invariant Sections", which will only help to make the other issues with them worse and worse.noted by tokigun on 2007-06-05 at 11:27 EDT:
Could we make the additional translation of Invariant Sections can be omitted in the further translation? e.g. when English text A is translated in German as B, and B is translated in Korean as C, C should have original Invariant Sections from A but doesn't have to include German-translated Invariant Sections from B (if any).
SFDL RELICENSING
Another different license? License proliferation is bad and should be avoid as much as possible.
WIKI RELICENSING
Yet another different license?!? Once more: license proliferation is bad and should be avoid as much as possible. This is getting really annoying! Is the FSF considering how much time of the members of the community is being consumed in revising license drafts that keep being published by the FSF?!? The GPLv3draft1 was followed by a reasonable consultation period, but then the GPLv3draft2, accompanied by the LGPLv3draft1, was shortly followed by GFDLv2draft1, and by GSFDLv1draft1; now this GNU Wiki License seems to be in preparation... This tsunami of new license texts seems to be really unjustifiable!
What we really should aim to is having more free software, not more licenses!
I strongly recommend the FSF to never draft the GNU Wiki License. Even Creative Commons (who seem to not care much about the problem of license proliferation...) considered the idea of special-casing wikies, but later dropped this possibility.
If the Work was previously published, with no Cover Texts, no Invariant Sections, and no Acknowledgements or Dedications or Endorsements section, in a system for massive public collaboration under version 1.2 of this License, and if all the material in th
This sounds awkward and arbitrary. If a work was published under version 1.2 *only* of the GFDL, then it's not relicensable under any other set of terms, unless the copyright holders explicitly agree to the relicensing. The FSF cannot retroactively change what is stated in section 10. of the GFDL v1.2. A different story obviously holds for works published under version 1.2 *or later* of the GFDL, but this clause does not seem to be based on the usual license-upgrade mechanism.
The date limit is also awkward and arbitrary: why is 1 June 2006 special?
Examples of suitable formats for Transparent copies of textual works include
Examples of suitable formats for Transparent copies of textual works include
Examples of suitable formats for Transparent copies of textual works include
with access to formats which make that convenient to do.
MPEG2 is not a free format. It should not be considered suitable.
I want to release eductational videos that are freedom licensed and require distribution by free means.
If someone can modify the videos and release them in a proprietary or non-free patented format, however convenient it may be, then they won't be free (liberty) anymore. With the changing key support of HD, I can quite easily imagine a situation where the video is modified, encrypted with a new key or a new algorithm, and then a license fee is charged to use that algorithm.
This license needs to specifically prevent that from occurring.
Examples of transparent video formats include MPEG2 and Ogg Theora.
MPEG2 should be included as an example of inappropriate formats, as it requires a royalty to be paid to the patent holder, as:
"Material stored in an otherwise Transparent file format in a way that thwarts or discourages subsequent substantial modification by others is not Transparent."
Having to pay a license fee should be considered discouragement.
Material stored in an otherwise Transparent file format in a way that thwarts or discourages subsequent substantial modification by others is not Transparent
Should be reworded and expanded as: --- Material stored in an otherwise Transparent file format in a way that thwarts or discourages subsequent substantial modification or distribution by others is not Transparent. A format that requires a royalty payment for use, modification or distribution of a work in that format is not transparent. ---
If this isn't included, then I can modify an Ogg Theora Video, and release it in format MPEG-Video-Name, which I patent and charge $1,000,000 for a license, but also release a closed, patent encumbered version. Maybe using that drop-res system that's part of the HDCP system.
Also needed is a clause to prevent the following taking place:
To stop people viewing a video without paying, dongles, encryption keys or some form of Tivoization could be used, eg.
I take a GFDL video work "Freedom is for the birds". I modify the work and release it in an HDCP format. I compute the checksum. I then take various unique identifiers - stills, sequences, audio grabs, or similar.
I then send the checksum and unique identifiers to Sony, MS, etc. They implement a feature which stops anything matching those identifiers being played, unless it has the corresponding checksum, which it won't unless it's been encrypted with my key.
Some WMV DRM style method could be used to force single copies, etc.
There may be some flaws in my scenario, but I'm sure there are lawyers and patent writers and cryptographers looking at ways to use methods just like this one to circumvent things. Maybe not right now, but MS is pushing the patent thing with Novell and the more freedom tries to raise it's head, the harder they'll fight to stick it under the water.
provided that you release the Modified Version under precisely this License
It would be useful to explicitly allow quotation of non-GFDL text in a GFDL document *if* the quoted text is covered by fair use or some similar legal exception -- even though this might require citation of the source or forbids modification of the quoted text (new restrictions not technically allowed by GFDL). For example, allow a Wikipedia (hence GFDL'd) article on George Washington to quote (up to the limits of the law) a published source, such as a book or article published under proprietary terms. Presumably the GFDL was not meant to imprison its works within its own cultural walls, never interacting with anything non-FDL'd. (Thanks to Karl Berry for helping me with the wording)
Modified Version
In bazaar style work, such as documents being managed by wikis or source code management systems with public access, modifications happen frequently and are conveyed immediately upon request (the most prominent example being Wikipedia). In such a situation, it is certainly not reasonable to consider each change as triggering the requirement to perform the listed things. Instead, it would be reasonable to lift this requirement until the Modified Version is conveyed outside of the collaborative work system, so a group of people can successively edit some document in wiki X without performing A--P on each change, and only when somebody moves it to his wiki Y, he needs to do it once.
History section
The nature of the History section should be clarified, since some people believe that it might be the meta-data of the revision control system or Wiki editing history, although they commonly do not satisfy the formalities (at least the title, year, new authors, and publisher of the Modified Version) imposed here. I think it is NOT a good idea to allow the version control meta-data to be the History section.
a title distinct from that of the Work
That should not be required for works with generic titles, such as encyclopedia articles, where the title is the name of the concept being described.
You may transmit copies with methods that give you legal rights to control further use, copying or transmission, only on condition that you waive the use of those legal rights to impose any conditions aside from those of this License.
One can easily misread this to permit DRM as long as it is used to enforce the GFDL's terms and conditions. But DRM is not even acceptable for that. It should be made clear that it is meant to permit conveying the work over transparent secure transmission protocols and using encryption or file access control on one's own copy of the work.
You accept the license if you propagate the Work.
noted by lqp on 2007-07-01 at 07:46 EDT:It is completely irrelevant whether one accepts the license or not.
Change to something like GPL: "You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are prohibited by law if you do not accept this License." The terms and conditions cannot be enforced anyway (ie., nobody can force a user to publish a transparent copy), but if they are not being obeyed, different (and severe) legal consequences based on copyright law are threatening (most notably the copyright holder is entitled to damages).
I disagree. Conception of "pure copyright license" exist only in USA, and even in USA it is not universally accepted. In the rest of the world _always_ is a contract.
And clear definition of method and moment of formation of this contract is a good thing.
If the Work
For existing interpretation of the GFDL1.2 in Wikipedia context, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verbatim_copying
GNU Free Documentation License
[This comment comes from Karl Berry; I'm posting it for him by proxy because of some technical issues.]
I agree with the comments from atai, orra, and others. Documentation and programs are commonly intertwined, and using incompatible licenses for them seems fundamentally problematic. Literate programming, as mentioned in another comment, is one example. Another example is packages such as GNU Autogen and GNU Gengetopt which are purposefully designed to allow specification of option documentation with option specification. Another example is the many systems which have been developed for marking up and extracting documentation from comments in the code.
The GFDL still seems mostly oriented toward printing large manuals that are written separately from the code and published on paper, despite the new clauses. It serves that original purpose. However, most free documentation is not like that -- and even less so are documents that are not documentation, fragmentary web pages, etc.
The only directions I have been able to think of are incomplete and probably unappealing, but FWIW, here they are: (1) a completely different sort of license which is the GPL + some text to avoid forcing the source code to be in the output; or (2) dual-licensing documentation under the GPL and GFDL, so that when printing on paper, the GFDL could apply, and in all other cases, the GPL could apply.
You may publically perform the Work provided you make a transparent copy
For GFDL-licensed works, should public display and public performance be treated in the same manner?
You may publish a work, a Modified Version, or a collection, of up to 20,000 characters of text (excluding formatting mark-up) in electronic form, or up to 12 normal printed pages, or up to a minute of audio or video, as an Excerpt.
Why are images not included in this list? Wikipedia has thousands of images licensed under the GFDL (all of which are currently burdened by including license disclaimers).noted by kaldari on 2007-02-02 at 13:11 EST:
Perhaps we could say "and images up to 500K" or something similar.
20,000 characters
We should probably change this to "20,000 words" both because 20,000 characters is far too small and because using characters creates unequal licensing terms for writing systems like Kanji where every character corresponds to a word (roughly).
This License is not limited to "documentation", or even to works that are
If a GFDL-licensed musical composition is recorded and the recording is distributed, a different party may be able to do a non-GFDL cover version under the "compulsory mechanical license" provision of US copyright law.
This License is not limited to "documentation", or even to works that are
If a GFDL-licensed musical composition is recorded and the recording is distributed, a different party may be able to do a non-GFDL cover version under the "compulsory mechanical license" provision of US copyright law.
This License is not limited to "documentation", or even to works that are
If a GFDL-licensed musical composition is recorded and the recording is distributed, a different party may be able to do a non-GFDL cover version under the "compulsory mechanical license" provision of US copyright law.
This License is not limited to "documentation", or even to works that are
If a GFDL-licensed musical composition is recorded and the recording is distributed, a different party may be able to do a non-GFDL cover version under the "compulsory mechanical license" provision of US copyright law.
This License is not limited to "documentation", or even to works that are
If a GFDL-licensed musical composition is recorded and the recording is distributed, a different party may be able to do a non-GFDL cover version under the "compulsory mechanical license" provision of US copyright law.
This License is not limited to "documentation", or even to works that are
If a GFDL-licensed musical composition is recorded and the recording is distributed, a different party may be able to do a non-GFDL cover version under the "compulsory mechanical license" provision of US copyright law.
This License is not limited to "documentation", or even to works that are
If a GFDL-licensed musical composition is recorded and the recording is distributed, a different party may be able to do a non-GFDL cover version under the "compulsory mechanical license" provision of US copyright law.
This License is not limited to "documentation", or even to works that are
If a GFDL-licensed musical composition is recorded and the recording is distributed, a different party may be able to do a non-GFDL cover version under the "compulsory mechanical license" provision of US copyright law.
This License is not limited
If a GFDL-licensed musical composition is recorded and the recording is distributed, a different party may be able to do a non-GFDL cover version under the "compulsory mechanical license" provision of US copyright law.
Preserve all the Invariant Sections of the Work, unaltered in their text and in their titles.
noted by samjam on 2007-11-21 at 09:40 EST:I would reccomend to change the text in the following way:
Preserve all the Invariant Sections of the Work unaltered in their text and in their titles unless permission to delete an invariant section is given by the author originally responsible for the inclusion of that invariant section.
Reason: While this change has no effect to documents with a single copyright holder (such as the documentation released by FSF), I think it is important for cases such as one main author who has accepted contributions from many people. In this case with the current license an invariant section can never be removed unless the main author manages to contact the hundreds contributors and takes permission from all of them.
Then the original author should not have made it invariant. - and otherwise, the "contribution from many people" are given under the false pretenses of a fake-invariant.
Opaque
Are examples of transparent audio formats omitted on purpose? I think they should be included for completeness.
Examples of suitable formats for Transparent copies
Needs to be said that the intial format counts as a transparent fromat for that work otherwise we hit the problem that something scanned in DjVu format would be imposible to alture whithout transcribeing the thing which places a rather unreasonable burden on the person makeing the chnages
provided that this License, the copyright notices, and the license notice saying this License applies to the Work are reproduced in all copies
This sucks for images since it creates issues with removeing watermarks.
Preserve all the copyright notices of the Work
This creates issues with watermarked images. Would be better to have to preserve all copyright credits but allo changes in the exact way credit is given
but changing it is not allowed
I think that modifying the FDL (and all other copyright licences) should definitely be allowed, as long as it's made completely clear that it's a different licence. A copyright licence is a functional work, and I think all functional works should be free in the same sense as free software. I've heard RMS say something similar to that in his speeches before. I'd possibly even go as far as saying the FSF is doing something unethical by not allowing modified versions. I think that notice should be changed to something along the lines of "Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this license document. Modified versions may also be made and distributed as long as the name of the licence is changed, and the terms 'GNU' and 'Free Documentation License' are removed."noted by jamesgnz on 2007-05-06 at 20:51 EDT:
More specifically, the FDL should be licensed under itself, so that distribution of an FDL licensed document with the FDL is allowed.noted by bulio on 2007-07-10 at 21:04 EDT:
noted by manuel2 on 2007-10-24 at 06:31 EDT:Yes, I too believe that the FDL should be licensed under itself, and should allow a user to use the license as their own, so as long as the following conditions are met:
1. The Name of the new license is changed, along with the committee responsible for it 2. A footnote must be added to the new license, with a line similar to this: "The copying and distribution of this entire license is permitted worldwide, without royalty, in any medium, provided this notice is preserved. GNU Free Documentation License is Copyright © 2000-2007 by the Free Software Foundation"
I believe the sfdl should be the fdl2, in case it willnot 'simpler' adds a confusive terminology which weakens freeedom(ej:simpler free software vs free software) unless you do the trick of completing the newlicensing by adding a nice oposite to 'simpler' which could be 'complexerfdl': a license for licenses' documents. (it doesn't matter if incompatibility here).noted by manuel2 on 2007-10-24 at 06:59 EDT:
thinking on a unwanted new license: cfdl... : thinking of other posibles 'aply to it': dedicatories, acknowledgements, endorsements,... (stuff that 'really' needs to be removed when modifying-redistributing...). ej1: i am distributing a fdled doc with cfdled aknowledgements of it: policy which is 'somehow' compatible.. adding a compatibility text section in the cfdl for when it aplies to works which are with the fdl? just buggy scratchnoted by mlinksva on 2007-11-23 at 16:13 EST:
Agree with johnston, and recursive licensing is unnecessary complicated and restrictive.
1 June 2006
Get rid of the date restriction.
You may publically perform the Work provided you make a transparent copy available as described in section 3 as though you had propagated opaque copies to the audience
I'd like also to explicitly state that you cannot prohibit recording of a public performance (and those recordings are then derivative works)... thinking of venues that prohibit photography and recording.
8a. SFDL RELICENSING
Change the SFDL into a set of additional permissions to the GPL. Also deprecate the FDL, i.e. recommend that it is no longer used, and that the SFDL be used instead.noted by samjam on 2007-11-21 at 09:44 EST:
I still don't fully see how FDL and GPL should be different.
FDL works are generally performed by or to humans GPL works are generally performed by or to machines
(for a suitably vague definition of perform).
literary programming correctly blurs the distinction which is so obvious with a dramatic script whose stage instructions can also be understood by a state-machine based machinima tool (and thus are also a program).
Then we have cookery books that can be followed by human and SOON machine, we have design books whose designs can be followed by 3D printers, or automatic lazer cutters and routers, the line is blurred.
[8b. WIKI RELICENSING
If it is necessary to have a wiki license, then make it as a set of additional permissions to the GPL.
GNU Wiki License
I think adding a separate licence for wikis is a bad idea (unless that's just a different name for one of the other licences). Having a specific licence makes it harder to use the works licensed under it in other types of works, and vice versa. People should be encouraged to use the new Simpler Free Documentation License for wikis instead, and it should be written so it works well for wikis.noted by johnston on 2007-05-16 at 12:21 EDT:
It also adds to licence proliferation
You may publish a work, a Modified Version, or a collection, of up to 20,000 characters of text (excluding formatting mark-up) in electronic form, or up to 12 normal printed pages, or up to a minute of audio or video, as an Excerpt.
I agree with kaldari. There should be a condition here for images. There are a huge number of images under the FDL in the Wikimedia projects, and the licence is a big burden for them at the moment. I'm not sure what the limit should be. Maybe it should be up to 10 images if displayed digitally, as long as they're in the same file or webpage, or up to 12 normal printed pages (to fit in with the requirement for text).
12 normal printed pages
I think this should be more specific. There's no definite "normal" size page for printing, and there's always the chance someone might print a 50 page book on 12 huge pieces of paper and claim that's "normal". Maybe it should be something like "12 normal A4 sized printed pages, or the equivalent (for example six A3 sized pages)". Also, why 12 in particular? Why not a more commonly used number such as 10?
all copies
This should only apply to copies which are distributed to others, rather than all copies made. At the moment, this means that even printing out a work under the FDL for your own personal use carries the burden of having to include the licence and those notices (or at least the appropriate links if the printout counts as an Excerpt under section 6a). Those extra pieces of text aren't needed for private copies because the person should already have a copy of them, or at least links to them.
I know that private copying isn't covered by copyright in some countries, so this doesn't apply there, but it is in others. This includes the UK, where I live, where this unnecessary burden really does exist at the moment.
You may add a passage of up to five words as a Front-Cover Text, and a passage of up to 25 words as a Back-Cover Text, to the end of the list of Cover Texts in the Modified Version.
For example, some East Asian languages (notably Japanese and Chinese; Korean has the strong concept of word, but the rule is not so strict and varys.) does not recognize the word boundary. I don't like this limit, and suggest using ratio with original text or just nothing.noted by emvigo on 2007-06-17 at 11:00 EDT:
But not only East Asian languages! Basque could fall here too.
Acknowledgments and Dedications can be deleted when a Modified Version deletes all material to which the Acknowledgments and Dedications could reasonably have applied.
I'd prefetr "must be deleted", so there cannot be any abusive use of these sections.
provided 60 days have not elapsed since the last violation
There's a problem here. How do you know when the last violation was? That can be very difficult to know and it assumes the author to be somehow regularly watching for violations. I'd better drop this line. I think it's a good idea to drop the "Inmediate termination" from v1.2 and give the violator a chance to rectify, but we must ensure the author can exercise his rights.
Such a section may not be included in the Modified Version
Delete it to avoid confussion; it can mislead people to think that no Modified Version can have an own "Endorsements" section, which is false. The idea is that each version should have its own endorsements.
For instructions on how to use this License, see http://www.gnu.org/licenses/.
Are we going to drop the "Addendum"? I think it's useful to place the instructions in the license.
if the material derived from the Work is more than 1/4 of the total.
This is not serious: 1/4 of what total? Pages? Words? Don't add things impossible to control.
[8b. WIKI RELICENSING
It is better to delete this section until there actually is a GNU Wiki License
the copyright holder
Same as comment 2201 at GSFDL draft by robmyers: in derived works, which copyright holder?
25 September 2006
This date should be updated upon release of the first draft of the FDL Version 3.
GNU Wiki License.]
In essence, pages on a wiki are simply a document that has been edited many times, and therefore can fall under the licensing of this document. Perhaps it is a better idea to include a "special cases" section to the FDL and mention wiki licenses there, as opposed to creating an entire new document for wikis alone.
but changing it is not allowed.
I believe that the FDL should be licensed under itself, and should allow a user to use the license as their own, so as long as the following conditions are met:
1. The Name of the new license is changed, along with the committee responsible for it 2. A footnote must be added to the new license, with a line similar to this: "The copying and distribution of this entire license is permitted worldwide, without royalty, in any medium, provided this notice is preserved. GNU Free Documentation License is Copyright © 2000-2007 by the Free Software Foundation"
If the Work does not specify a version number of this License, you may choose any version ever published (not as a draft) by the Free Software Foundation.
I think it would be a better idea to have the latest version of the FDL to be automatically applicable if no FDL version is specified. This section clause would hence be re-written something along the lines of: "If the Work does not specify a version number of this License, the latest non-draft version of this license will be considered applicable"
ith access to formats which make that convenient to do
It would sound better if this passage was worded like this: "... with access to formats which make it convenient to do so."
the document
Does this refer to the license or to the Work? Replace with "the work" to be consistent with the rest of the text in this section.
discourages
The choice of format may be discouraging for a wide range of users in itself. For example, LaTeX, listed in the next paragraph as an example of a suitable format for Transparent copies, highly "discourages subsequent substantial modification" for a large number of people.
The same can be said of formats that hackers and "power users" dislike: I once created a report using Scribus, a free DTP program. Its format is a "suitable format for Transparent copies". While the feedback on the report itself was excellent, the technical comments I got was "why didn't you use [LaTeX|DocBook|XHTML|whatever]". This is because the format is not intended for direct editing by humans. It is a highly complicated markup language with lots of numbers in it. It could be argued by people who don't want to or know how to use Scribus that this "discourages subsequent substantial modification" because the same result could have been achieved using another format.
So it has to be absolutely clear what this means, which I suspect has to do with using the facilities of an otherwise Transparent format to block practical modification. Examples include (X)HTML with all text converted into HTML entities or with embedded JavaScript that decrypts the otherwise encrypted text, or LaTeX with tons of invisible markup that doesn't affect the rendered DVI/Postscript/PDF, but makes it practically annoying and difficult to make changes.
I'd go for something like "...purposely inhibits..." instead of "discourages".
You may publically perform the Work provided you make a transparent copy available as described in section 3 as though you had propagated opaque copies to the audience.
Let's say I receive a piece of music in a format that describes both notation and the actual sounds of the instruments (like MOD or S3M formats), covered by this license. I then perform this Work for a public audience, perhaps adding some imagery or dance performance to it. I would now have to offer each member of the audience the original music file from the same place. Supposedly, I could place a box with CDs or USB sticks next to the scene with a sign saying that the music is available here. However, I think it would be reasonable to just offer the possibility to download the file -- ie. not requiring that performances fall under the "designated place" part of section 3, but be allowed to fall under the "otherwise ... state in or with each Opaque copy a computer-network location ...". If this is what is intended, the expression "...make a transparent copy of the document available..." should be more specific as to that "make available" means.
The purpose of this License is to make a work of authorship free.
(a) The GPL, either v.2 or v.3, achieves the goal, as noted by others. (b) The proposed GSFDL also achieves the goal, but suffers from being GPL-incompatible. (c) The GFDL does not achieve the goal of making a work free. A work licensed under any version of the GFDL may be encumbered with "invariant sections", which is to say non-free material which cannot be legally removed from derivative works. This ability substantially removes freedoms 1 and 3.
Even if the first author does not apply "invariant sections", later authors can, breaking copyleft. The GFDL is used at Wikipedia, but only by means of carefully deleting all content to which invariant sections are added, and all modifications made after the addition of invariant sections.
This is well-understood. It was explained during the comments period for the original version of the license, but was ignored or dismissed by the FSF at that time. I doubt that the FSF will change its bullheaded opinion on this; the best I realistically expect is that this license will be largely ignored and the GSFDL used in its place. However, I document the objection for the record.
This License is not limited to "documentation", or even to works that are textual; it can be used for any work of authorship meant for human appreciation, rather than machine execution
This license, when used with invariant sections or cover texts, is completely unsuitable for many types of works. Expamples include visual art and audio recordings.
Invariant Sections
I know Stallman loves his invariant sections, but they're a nasty restriction on freedom. One common example: If a work features an Invariant Section containing philosophical information, it means that you *cannot* create a derivative philosophical work using parts of that work, at least not without a separate license.
A "Transparent" copy of the Work
aterial stored in an otherwise Transparent file format in a way that thwarts or discourages subsequent substantial modification by others is not Transparent
You're trying to get at the same concept.
Perhaps something like "For a copy of the Work to be transparent, it must also be in a form which is preferred for making changes to it."
If the required texts for either cover are too voluminous to fit legibly, you should put the first ones listed (as many as fit reasonably) on the actual cover, and continue the rest onto adjacent pages.
Audiobooks generally have printed covers. They do not generally have "adjacent pages". This makes the license unpleasantly unusable for audiobooks in some cases. There are no doubt similar problems with other media.
Preserve all the Invariant Sections of the Work, unaltered in their text and in their titles.
Do I even have to go through the reasons?
f the Modified Version includes Ancillary Sections that contain no material copied from the Work, you may at your option designate some or all of these sections as invariant.
Breaks copyleft, of course.
If the Work has no Cover Texts and no Invariant Sections then you may relicense the Work under the GNU Simpler Free Documentation License.
This should allow the "legacy" works licensed under the GFDL "1.2 or later" to become freely licensed.
"Invariant Sections"
âInvariant sectionsâ are non-free sections, though there may be good reason to allow them. To that end, all thatâs needed is a way to aggregate such a non-free section within an otherwise free work. Of the four freedoms, (0) and (2), and to a lesser extent, (1), apply to the entire work, while freedom (4) is restricted from some sections. Making this explicit should lead to a more readable license.noted by einhverf on 2007-10-18 at 19:34 EDT:
Invariant sections are only needed because of the desire to undermine the basic principles of free speech, i.e. by forcing the GNU Manifesto to be distributed with the EMACS manual. These undermine the connection between free speech and free software and therefore do more harm to the FSF than to anyone else.
There is no real reason to allow any sort of invariant sections beyond standard disclaimers. Incariant sections *should* be limited to that.
GNU Wiki License.
Can anyone point me to a copy of such a license.
I would not want to publish works that could be relicensed under terms that I am not able to view beforehand. I am not a lawyer but this raises all kinds of red flags.
GNU Simpler Free Documentation License
The SDFL version should be explicitly specified: And in this case it's very important to clearly specify the meaning of the "or later" clause: is the choice up to the person doing the relicensing? "Or later" means that the choice is done once and for all at relicensing time, or that the "or later" *propagates* to the new license terms? (of course we want to mean the second hypothesis, but it must be clear).
under applicable copyright law
I've seen some licenses (free and proprietary) that bind their terms to specific copyright legislations. For example, WinZip Standard or Evaluation License (proprietary) explicitly says that their terms are subject to Connecticut state law. Or the FreeArt License says to be subject to French Law.
As FSF's goal has always been to create an international license, shouldn't we define this point better? What's the applicable law, the licensor's country or the licensee's?
Invariant Sections"
If "Free Speech" an the GNU FDL are to be equated, this section *MUST* be dropped. Invariant sections exist for the reason of the desire of RMS to force the distribution of propaganda (the GNU Manifesto) with technical documentation. This is not free speech (indeed it is FORCED speeech) and therefore undermines the FSF's attempt to equate free speech with free software.
Are we to be left with Debian and the DFSG to be the best judge of what is Free?
"Invariant Sections"
If in the course of my employment I write a networking book that refers to my companies products, a competitor may then enhance the work with new information and write an invariant talking about how the old book was poor/weak and written for inferior products and how the new book is more complete supporting new technology and written for a better product line.
So... the invariant scuppers my use of their enhancements.
The only solution is to beat them to the punch and add my own invariant that says "anybody who modifies this work is a sneaky rotter and up to no good".
or... not use the FDL... which is my current choice, I'm hoping the new FDL changes this.
derivative works of the document must themselves be free in the same sense
Please see comment 3546 on the GSFDL draft: http://gplv3.fsf.org/comments/rt/readsay.html?filename=gsfdl-draft-1&id=3546
published
An argument can be made that a work displayed solely on the Internet is still unpublished, so this should be clarified with a different term.
The freedom to make and redistribute copies of the work.
I do know that Digital Rights Management (sometimes called Digital Restrictions Management, or DRM) can be used to redistribute copies of the work, but restricts redistribution and modification of works covered by this license. Can we disfavor use of DRM in this license?
GNU Wiki License.]
Having too much licenses make it difficult to modify the works, the FSF has made that statement before.
I think it is better to merge GSFDL, GFDL and GWL in one document, with optional clauses that make a case for wikis, and free software documentation.
Free Documentation License applies to more works than just this two.
entation Li
T
GNU Free Documentation License
The first thing I would like to say is that I sincerely hope the FSF does not allow itself to compromise its belief in freedom by making the FDL compatible with CC licenses. The FDL should actually be outmoded. There is no need for any license for documentation beyond using the GPL. My recommendation is to signal to the world that the FSF believes in freedom by dumping the FDL and endorsing the GPL for use with content. There is no need to differentiate between documentation and content, or content and code. They are the same.
The "Invariant Sections" are certain Ancillary Sections whose titles are designated, as being those of Invariant Sections, in the notice that says that the Work is released under this License
This is not copyleft. It is copyright. If you want copyright don't build it into a supposedly copyleft license - just use copyright.
A Front-Cover Text may be at most 5 words, and a Back-Cover Text may be at most 25 words
Please can the FSF put online a template "free documentation object" so we can see why there seems to be so may arbitrary requirements on form.
COPYING IN QUANTITY
Why limit freedom this way? Still trying to protect the small business interests of publishers? Get out of the way of free documentation and let it create its own industry like free software has. it will do it, but not if the FSF continues to inhibit the freedom of this sector to grow by making licenses for documentation that are not free.
MODIFICATIONS
Rather than critique this I would like to meet with the FSF and present different forms and models for free documentation. I don't see any of the characteristics of free documentation as it exists now, or where it is heading, listed in these paragraphs.
EXCERPTS
No need to limit snippets...we should be able to reuse documentation material in other docs as easy as u can cut a few lines out of a GPL applicaton to use in another GPL application.
WIKI RELICENSING
Wikis wont be here forever...why build in a format into the license? The FSF wouldnt (presumably) say 'CMS' or 'Blog' or 'google docs'...why wiki?
Also, I am not sure the 'massive public collaboration' lends content any special character. Is there a GPL for software made via 'massive public collaboration? no? Maybe thats because the GPL got it right and the FDL is wrong at its very core. If you have to keep hacking in all these special cases then somethings wrong. I believe this license should be dropped and replaced by the GPL.
or up to a minute of audio or video
This doesn't cover digital images such as screenshots, diagrams, photographs, or other still media such as slides from presentations. Suggested revision: add clause "or up to 12 still images,"
or
Does this language allow 6 pages of text and 30 seconds of video to be an Excerpt? Suggestion: Reorganize as: "You may publish a work, a Modified Version, or a collection,as an Excerpt, where an Excerpt can consist of any combination of up to up to 12 normal printed pages, or up to a minute of audio or video." [perhaps with other clauses including 12 pages of text equivalents of other media].
provided that this License,
Inclusion of the text of the license doesn't work well to presentations (e.g. OpenDocument .odp files where the text of the license can't be fitted in a legible manner into a slide, notes, or metadata fields). Likewise for images, video, and audio files. Suggestion: Require inclusion of the text of the license in opaque works, but only a reference to the license in transparent works. "provided that for opaque work this License, and for transparent works a link to the text of this License, and for all works," The next paragraph allowing reference requires a non-existent infrastructure of National Agencies (per country?) with license discovery services. Simple reference to a place where a recipient can find the text of the license (as in the Creative Commons licenses) is all that is needed for transparent works.
The purpose of this License is to make a work of authorship free.
test
You may not apply technical measures to obstruct or control the use or further copying of any copies you make or distribute, by those to whom they may be distributed.
This clause is the most obnoxious one in GFDL 1.2 and it must go away or at least be rephrased.
First, it affects copies you make, not only copies you distribute. This is a restriction on use, not only on redistribution.
Second, the goal is to prevent distribution on DRM media in a way that doesnât give access to the source. However there is no reason to rule out DRM media at all. For example the GPL wording already forbids such abuse.
Third, the wording is very, very poor. As written, it prevents even private copies to be put in a closed drawer, or to put access control on digital copies (e.g. with permissions). I am violating this clause everyday by keeping GFDL documents on my encrypted filesystem!
T
Why so many essays ???noted by james407 on 2010-03-12 at 03:37 EST:
resume
Secondarily, this License assures the author and publisher the credit for their work, while sparing them any appearance of being responsible for modifications made by others.
The best course of action to take sometimes isnât clear until youâve listed and considered your alternatives. The following paragraphs should help clue you in to what the experts think is significant. ===================== Free Wedding Hawaii Free Wedding Hawaii
Entitled
This is a common error -- should be "titled" instead of "entitled" throughout the document (XYZ is not entitled to anything, but the section is titled XYZ).
this license
this license?
Comment 1822: Invariant Sections Considered Evil
Regarding the text:
In section: gfdl.applicdef.p3.s1
Submitted by: robmyers on 2006-09-26 at 15:11 EDT
8 agree: axonrg, kaldari, raulir, mozbruce, kaol, jrodman, einhverf, wfox
noted by robmyers on 2006-09-26 at 15:11 EDT: noted by jrodman on 2007-03-27 at 13:53 EST: noted by jbuck on 2008-02-15 at 19:22 EST:
collapse children