Simpler
Maybe just use the word "simple" instead of "simpler"noted by dlarge on 2006-09-28 at 08:42 EDT:
I think it is better as 'simpler'. That way we stay in line with the LGPL (Lesser General Public License). The general effect is to convey that this license has 'lost' something that the GNU FDL has. This helps people think about whether thier strategy would actually benefit from using the SFDL rather than the FDLnoted by jamesgnz on 2006-10-10 at 05:40 EDT:
/ Maybe just use the word "simple" instead of "simpler" /
You must be joking. Saying the SFDL was simple would be like saying the pygmy right whale was small.
Opaque formats include proprietary formats that can be read and edited only by proprietary word processors, SGML or XML for which the DTD, schema and/or processing tools are not generally available, and the machine-generated HTML, PostScript or PDF produc
This section may be too technology specific? Also the boundary of transparent and proprietary formats may be difficult to define. Microsoft Word documents may be proprietary before people reverse-engineered the format. So is it transparent now?noted by verdyph on 2007-02-05 at 01:38 EST:
Remember that PDF documents can embed medias "featuring" DRM-protected medias (videos, music...) requiring a separate licence key to view them. if that embedded media is essential to the document, and the PDF can't be used without it (for example if the PDF is intended to give a public documentation of a free API, but the essential part of it is a DRM-protected video explaining the exact semantics or conditions where the API will work as described), then that PDF is opaque.noted by verdyph on 2007-02-05 at 01:39 EST:
if you think this is a minor issue, just look at the many plugins that are loaded when you load Adobe Reader, many of them are related to security, encryption, DRM support, and support of DRM-protected codecs!
Version 1
This should be called version 3 to show that it is part of the same package as the GPLv3. Note that there is precedent: the first version of the LGPL was numbered 2.0.
Examples of suitable formats for Transparent copies of textual works include plain ASCII without markup, Texinfo input format, LaTeX input format, SGML or XML using a publicly available DTD or schema, OpenDocument format, and standard-conforming simple HT
Examples of suitable formats for Transparent copies of textual works include plain ASCII without markup, Texinfo input format, LaTeX input format, SGML or XML using a publicly available DTD or schema, OpenDocument format, and standard-conforming simple HT
precis: not all text is ASCII, DTD/Schema neither necessary nor sufficient, human modifiable PDF may not exist.noted by locutas on 2006-09-27 at 15:31 EDT:
How about just accepting any published standard format not subject to patent restriction which would encumber the ability of readers and editors to access, modify, and republish the text?noted by krishnap on 2006-10-02 at 13:58 EDT:
Think internationalization. Unicode should be added here.
national
"National or international"
full title
"full title if there is one"
You may
What use is an anti-drm clause that merely make it very hard for a downstream user to execute their rights as opposed to illegal for them to do so? ... What use is an anti-drm clause that permits circumvention when the devices for circumvention might themselves be made illegal independent of the recourse actions of the distributor? To me this seems like a major step back: Even the Creative Commons licenses provides 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 encryption schemes? ... I saw resistance against that as a primary quality of the GFDL v1.2.
You may transmit copies with methods that give you legal rights to control further use, copying or transmission, only
The initial part of the sentence appears to give complete rights. The danger is that this could easily be quoted without the modifier. An easy solution would be to alter the word order to read:
You may only transmit...use, copying or transmission, on condition that you waive...
which would make clear that this is a restricted permission. --Adrian Custer
0a.
Why both the 0 and the a? --Adrian Custer
,p
,p
missing space
the work's license
Isn't "the work's license" necessarily the SFDL? If so, can't this section state:
...if the SFDL has been registered with the national agency...
? Without understanding what the registration system does, it's hard to see if we are registering (1) the license i.e. the SFDL or (2) the fact the work is licensed under the SFDL. Needs clarification.
front cover
front cover
These terms are confusingly used: 'full title', 'front cover' and in Section 1 'Title page'. Many books (under the dust cover which may be tossed) have the title only on the vertical binding with the front cover left blank. Better would be to say:
The full title of the distributed document must be presented clearly and unambiguously in the initial part of the distributed copy where a title would commonly be expected.
or some similar construction.
title distinct from that of the Work
Does this conflict with the requirement to print the 'title' on the 'title page'? It would seem to.
What is 'distinct'? It should be possible to have: The Gnumeric Manual, myCompany version or some other linked but derivative label. Does the issue of 'sufficiently distinct' need to be clarified legaly?
if the material derived from the Work is more than 1/4 of the total.
Perhaps we could add a request for credit if the majority of a chapter is taken from a book. Perhaps this should be "...is more than 1/4 of the total. If the material derived from the Work includes the majority of any of its chapters, 2000(4000?) of its words, or a full minute of its content, credit for this contribution should be given in the same way."noted by jsmith on 2006-10-04 at 12:24 EDT:
The credit clause is a compromise. We don't want to have to list too many athors on the title page. The current text requires the name(s) of the modifiers and up to five names of previous authors. It would be impractical to have to list many more than that. The 1/4 clause allows me to omit those previous authors if more than 75% of the content in the modified version is new. Your proposal could really break this balence. Imagine if the entire work was 3 hours. The title page could potentially then require up to 180 names! Remember that credit is still available in the form of the copyright notices and the history section.
Page
This information only appears on a single page in short documents. Perhaps this should be 'Title section' or some other term for 'piece' rather than a well defined word for an area of paper.
the network location
The name of the file may be more permanent than the original location so this should be required to be maintained as well. The original may disappear while many copies can still be found through search engines in new locationsnoted by jraftery on 2007-10-28 at 15:58 EST:
Yes. You should provide the full URL, including the file name and type. Otherwise some smart alec will argue this clause is satisfied if they give the server details without the folder/filepath.
these things
For clarity, each section (e.g. "History" , "Endorsements") should be given its own letter heading and its requirements given separately. The clarity would outweigh the cost of some repetition in the language.
to assert
Change "for publicity for" -> "for publicity" which is sufficient.
Also add an 'either' to make the operators work clearly:
"to use ...for publicity or to *either* assert or imply ..."
combine
The combination should be required to distinguish the sections to which the pieces apply.
national agency
Does this mean only national or governmental bodies, or can any individual with a web-site (accessible nationally) act as a "national agency" here?
You need not include a copy of this License in the Work if you have registered
Why can't this provision also apply to modifications? Provided the license information is available from a natinoal agency?
kind of "copyleft"
Why is the GSFDL only "kind of" "copyleft"? How is it not copyleft? Why isn't it fully copyleft?noted by axonrg on 2006-09-27 at 07:19 EDT:
Also, the term "kind of" seems unprofessional and vague. Pseudo-copyleft or something similar might be more appropriate.
Use a title distinct from that of the Work
If the work documents a computer program or other form of code, process, etc., provide the version number of the exact version, release, or other identifier of the program, web page, or process description to which the work applies.
You may do that in the modified title or in the history.
precisely this License
Would it work to allow authors to delineate sample code, mark it as released under a specific GPL-compatible license, and require modifiers to preserve these samples as long as analogous commands or functions exist in the modified version?
For example, I have a library with object plugh which has a Y2 method. If I define a "hello world" example, which uses plugh.Y2(); and license it under the GPL, and subsequent publisher would have to preserve (and update as appropriate) the example unless their version of the library deleted plugh::Y2.
20,000 characters
I'd prefer a word count here, for several reasons, including this: 20000 characters in Kanji gets you a lot more information than 20000 characters in German.noted by kaldari on 2006-09-27 at 20:05 EDT:
This limit is far to small. It should be changed to either "200,000 characters" or preferably "20,000 words". Single Wikipedia articles, for example, commonly exceed 100,000 characters.noted by jcowan on 2006-09-27 at 22:53 EDT:
"Word" is not a well-defined term in many languages, notably including Chinese. I think all numerical values are hopeless.noted by derobert on 2006-10-13 at 01:22 EDT:
I agree with jcowan that a word count wouldn't work either. Heck, taking your German example, German words can be pretty long compared to many other languages.noted by verdyph on 2007-02-05 at 02:13 EST:
What could be said is to limit the excerpt to 20,000 bytes used to represent all characters of plain-text present in the document, using a coded character set encoding syntax and format defined by an international ISO standard, or a national standard signed by a national standard body who is a member of ISO at its time of publication, or any legal successor of these standard bodies, or any other encoding whose support would be required by some national law. (So this includes UTF-8, UTF-16, ISO 8859-1, ISO 646, but also GB-18030, HKCS, TIS-620, ISCII...)noted by verdyph on 2007-02-05 at 02:20 EST:
What is important with such definition of characters is that it allows various encodings, according to different character models, provided that there's a public standard for it. This is a more neutral limit, notably for the Han script, which is quite compact when using the UTF-16 encoding or a GB or EUC encoding. Restrincting the count to international or national standards forbids proprietary extensions used to override the limitation, in order to allow create very long excerpts.
May be a second limit should be placed, based on the percentage of text extracted, when sizing the full text with the same encoding as the excerpt.
20,000 characters
This limit is far too small. It should either be changed to "200,000 characters" or preferably "20,000 words". Single Wikipedia articles, for example, often exceed 100,000 characters.
You may publically perform the Work provided you make a transparent copy of the document available as described in section 3 as though you had distributed opaque copies to the audience.
noted by ArneBab on 2006-10-13 at 19:23 EDT:This seems specifically targetted at performing arts, such as music or theater. AIUI, there is a difference between section 2 and section 3 to not require everyone to maintain a website for three years just to give a copy to their neighbour.
As written above, however, this distinction does not seem preserved -- if I perform a poem or sing a song that is released under this license to my family, I would (theoretically) be required to maintain transparent copies for a long enough time. I'm also not convinced that amateur performing art societies have the knowledge and/or budget to maintain such a site, should they perform a piece or play under this license.
With performing arts, this would only mean, that you are required to have , for example, a songbook in electronic form, which you can give them. It only grows complicated, if you only memorized the song.noted by bluebirc on 2006-11-21 at 17:50 EST:
noted by wouter on 2007-07-26 at 19:28 EDT:Or if you are a jazz musician and improvise. What would happen if you misplay a song... are you then violating the license? It should at least be restricted to what you have yourself.
If you distribute recordings of a performance it would already be a big burden, but at least possible. I think the damage of this might be greater the the loop hole.
I said "knowledge and/or budget" for a reason: I don't think all amateur performing art societies have the knowledge to maintain a website, or the budget to produce enough transparent copies on physical media to allow people to take one with them from a concert or lecture.
I suggest allowing people to refer to transparent copies on third-party websites if the performance is done by non-professionals, or something similar. This wording would need to be refined, however.
Version 1
This is the first time the license has been seen. It is version 1. GPL v3 is not a package! If LGPL did start at version 2, it may be because version 1 was scrapped?noted by jamesgnz on 2006-11-14 at 06:42 EST:
Please no, not Mozilla again! Please!
If I understand the Mozilla situation correctly, SeaMonkey 1.0.6 (which replaces the old Mozilla suite, which got up to 1.7.13) is based on Firefox & Thunderbird 1.5.0.8 (this version of Firefox being from a similar codebase to Netscape 8.1.2) which include a rendering engine with a version scheme that had been in sync with the previous Mozilla suite before it was renumbered, ChatZilla 0.9.69.2, and an HTML editor with presumably some other version number, while it is Camio 1.0.3 (not 1.0.6 or 1.5.0.8) that is based on the afore mentioned Firefox version.
What does it actually matter if there is no version 1 or 2? Where is it written in stone that version numbers must start from 1? It's not like the version number tells us how many releases there have been anyway -- if the current version of something is version 2.0, there could have been a 1.0, a 1.1 and a 1.2. Some version 'numbers' aren't even numbers, like Mozilla's for instance. Where does 1.5.0.8 fit on the number line?
This license is part of a group of licenses of which the flagship is the GPL. And this license is being developed in sync with the GPLv3. Call it version 3. Please. It will just make everything easier.
kind of "copyleft"
The word 'kind' should be replaced by 'type' or 'form' or even 'implementation'. I say this because in the UK 'kind' can also mean that something is only partially simmilar/true. Like "kind of OK" means it's possibly OK.noted by robmyers on 2006-11-30 at 10:26 EST:
Like the colloquial "kinda".noted by Garrett on 2007-02-09 at 17:10 EST:
I'd go even further than dlarge's suggestions (which could still be seen as meaning "almost true") and suggest "This License is considered to be "copyleft"," or even "This License is "copyleft",".noted by jraftery on 2007-10-28 at 18:32 EST:
How about "This is a 'copyleft' license"?
free
It may be best to also state that the word 'free' in this text refers to these freedoms and not to price.
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!
COLLECTIONS
noted by derobert on 2006-10-13 at 01:21 EDT:Hello,
Not really sure if this is the correct place to ask this but....
If a video is copylefted using the GSFDL. And that video was embedded into a webpage. (Using the HTML "embed" element, the HTML "object" element, or whatever other technology that exists now or gets created.) Then would that webpage become copylefted too (and covered by the GSFDL too)?
I'd actually prefer that it did. I'd prefer we get a very strong copyleft that propagates under conditions like this too. -- Charles Iliya Krempeaux
That's a question of copyright law, fairly outside the scope of the license.
the Addendum below
What Addendum? There seems to be no addendum for this to refer to.
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.
Why does a licence notice have to be added each time? IT seems like one Licence notice should be enough for the entire work.noted by derobert on 2006-10-13 at 01:16 EDT:
It just says that you must include it & where to include it. So it sounds to me like one copy is fine.
Include an unaltered copy of this License.
Why do modified versions require inclusion of the licence when for verbatim copies: "You need not include a copy of this License in the Work if you have registered the work's license with a national agency that maintains a network server through which the general public can find out its license."?
Further more, how is the licence ever excluded in the first place. That clause only applies to making verbatim copies, and removing the licence is not part of making a verbatim copy.
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.
This is unfair to people other than the original author, as they cannot add new acknolegements or dedicacations except via Section 5.noted by andrewpm on 2007-08-25 at 03:02 EDT:
This basically constitutes an invariant section. Since the GSFDL is supposed to remove invariant sections, this should be removed.
Such a section may not be included in the Modified Version
Why can the modified version not include an ensorsment section? What if the modified version is endorsed?noted by jsmith on 2006-10-02 at 16:48 EDT:
Ok... I see now that this contradicts a sentence later in this section. See also GFDL comment 1941.
http://gplv3.fsf.org/comments/rt/readsay.html?id=1941
Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.
As usual, this is a "non-free license text". Really, the license text needs to have a free license. Since some degree of license proliferation is unavoidable, we want people to reuse good clauses rather than inventing their own.
Since you don't want to encourage license proliferation or confuse people, it's OK to grant the permission to make derivative works of the license text somewhere less prominent, such as on your website. But it really ought to be done somewhere.
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 sentence is unclear on exactly what technical measures would be allowed under what circumstances. It appears to prohibit "parallel distribution": such as distributing an iTunes copy, but distributing a fully transparent copy along with every iTunes copy. This should be allowed.
I suggest writing a draft which specifies that the rights adhere to the *recipients*, not to the *copies*.
Try something like this:
You may not apply any technical measures to the Work, or a Modified Work, that have the effect or intent of restricting the ability of any person to exercise the rights granted to them under this license or by law.
This phrasing focuses on the problem: DRM restricts people from doing things they have the right to do. With this text, you can apply DRM if and only if it *doesn't* restrict people from doing things they have the right to. (And you're not trying to restrict them.)
1. APPLICABILITY AND DEFINITIONS
Way better than in current GFDL. Congrats.
Version 1
As the FDL §8a allows relicencing under SFDL there licence numbers should be in sync. This way in the future (FDL and SFDL 3+) this section (FDL §8a) would require "same version".
plain ASCII
For multilingual correctness, this should say âplain textâ or âplain UTF-8â.
PDF designed for human modification
It is not at all clear what "PDF designed for human modification" means. Does it mean special cases like Illustrator files that are edited with a graphics editor?noted by derobert on 2006-10-13 at 00:59 EDT:
PostScript (and, I believe, to a lesser extent PDF) is a programming language... It is /possible/ to write PostScript documents (and I suppose PDF as well) by hand, in a text editor.noted by verdyph on 2007-02-05 at 01:33 EST:
PDF should mean only the documented part of the format, not the proprietary optional extensions! There are some PDF documents that embed some components which are not "transparent"; if using such component is required to render the document correctly (for example an authorizatrion mechanism where the reader needs to provide a secret key, possibly by purchasing it to a single provider, in order to read the document possibly for a limited time and on a single systeù), then the PDF document is not a transparent copy.
XCF
Is XCF really a format whose "specification is available to the general public"? Does implementation source count as a spec?
TRANSLATION
Why mention this at all? It sounds like the translations would have no legitimacy, so mentioning them is unnecessary and confusing.noted by jraftery on 2007-10-28 at 12:32 EST:
I agree that translations that of the license should be included, to clarify to users who do not speak English, what their rights are. To avoid legal disputes the English version must have primacy. Can a note be added to explain the different purposes of the two version?
To avoid different translators creating multiple versions of the translations of the license I think there should be official approved (or at least reviewed) translations available from fsf which should be used here. Where none is available then a translator could his own translation, provided he sends a copy to fsf to help their translation process. If this license is to be used for the hundreds of wikipedias in other languages then it should not be hard to get those to help translate the license.
TRANSLATION
The last sentence of the first paragraph seems to say that the translations have no legitimacy at all. So mentioning them is unnecessary and confusing.
(duplicate comments since my original didn't appear yet)
JPG
JPG is a DOS file extension short for JPEG. Actually, the file format on disk is JFIF.
one or more persons or entities
This seems to prohibit anonymous authorship. Or are pseudonyms allowed here?
Prominently state the name of the publisher of the Modified Version
Seems to disallow the publisher being anonymous. Also, what about unpublished works; there is no publisher then.
for
strike this "for"noted by derobert on 2006-11-28 at 17:02 EST:
... looks like this has been fixed now; oddly enough they struck the other for.
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
Maybe it'd be more appropriate to specify a portion of the work that can be taken? Or is the point of this to make sure that the license itself doesn't become the majority of the document?
Having put you on notice, the copyright holder may then terminate your license at any time
It seems like that "may then terminate...at any time" would include things like 1 second after being put on notice.noted by Garrett on 2007-02-09 at 17:44 EST:
noted by jraftery on 2007-10-28 at 12:12 EST:Agreed. Even the IDSA/ESA gives 48 hours. :)
I understand that the "at any time" is designed to indicate that they can do this whenever they feel necessary (rather than at a particular date after the offending supplier posts/updates/changes the work), but some sort of time limit in which to remove the content before prosecution is surely needed to avoid nasty situations.
The wording is not clear. What is the 60days and how des it relate to "at any time"
use the work
noted by ktucker on 2007-09-28 at 23:59 EDT:this should be the phrase ", or use the work for any purpose"
to clear it up. There shall be no restrictions on the purpose for which the work may be read, viewed or used.
The freedom to read, view, or or otherwise experience the work, and to use it for any purpose.
Title
noted by pboddie on 2007-03-30 at 12:35 EST:Title Page sounds like it was intended to be the front cover _to me_. Maybe a name like "information section" or similar would be more useful. In German books you generally have the secons page, which contains date of publication, copyright, original name, etc. which are only interesting for getting information about the book, but not for reading the book itself/not for the content, while the first page contains title, etc.
Sometimes this is pushed even further back, so title and metaö-information are partly seperated. BUt I'm not sure how to incorporate this into the license.
For various graphics formats, the file's metadata is where such information could be placed. Perhaps the wording needs to accommodate such possibilities.
The only kind of work for which this should not be used is software.
The only kind of work for which this should not be used is software, for which the GNU Free software licenses should be used.noted by robmyers on 2006-11-30 at 10:27 EST:
What about using code examples from free software in free documentation? Or documents structured as PostScript or LaTeX where the work is both software and document?
Please help spread the the word that free software needs free reference manuals and free tutorials.
Using this license will help to spread the the word that free software needs free reference manuals and free tutorials.noted by pedroros on 2008-03-18 at 19:56 EST:
I don't think that this sentence should be in the license. It's too propagandistic. A "preamble" stating the philosophy and purpose of the license is enough to understand that this license forms part of a bigger purpose of making free manuals available.
If you are writing a manual or textbook, please insist on publishing it under a free license.
described on your website.
If you are writing a manual or textbook, publish it under a free license, and in particular this SFDL or the FDL.
You need not include a copy of this License in the Work if you have registered the work's license with a national agency that maintains a network server through which the general public can find out its license
You need not include a copy of this License in the Work if you have registered the work's license with a national agency that maintains a network server through which the general public can find out its license, and if that national agency network server is accessible internationally without any restrictions.
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,
Although I can think of many reasons why not to do it, perhaps considering adding a percentage might clarify this? Then again, 1% of a 1-page paper is only a few sentences, but of an encyclopedia it could be nearly a full volume.
GNU Simpler Free Documentation License
Would it be possible to create a "lesser" Version of the license for embeddable texts?noted by jraftery on 2007-10-28 at 05:05 EST:
Reasoning: I am creating a Roleplaying System at the moment, and I want to license it in such a way that it can be used in commercial products, but the logical unit which teh rules consist of must stay free.
At the moment I somehow stagger with other licenses, but I can still relicense, and I would do so in a blink, if you'd start a GNU LFDL.
Maybe optional extra permissions that authors can grant for their work (like GPLv3 has) with downstream users having the option to not pass on the extra permissions and issue derivative works under the straight GSFDL.
Documentation
This should be called "GNU Simpler Free Document License" to reflect, that it can be used for all kinds of documents, not just documentation for Programs.noted by ArneBab on 2007-01-31 at 18:43 EST:
Since the GNU SFDL doesn't have the problems of the FDL (where changing the name could be interpreted as making the new FDL no successor of the old FDL, thus making the transition from earlier versions of the FDL impossible), I think "GNU Simpler Free Document License" could make it easier for many artists to adopt it (instead of the creative commons "alternatives" which don't require free sourcecode).noted by jraftery on 2007-10-28 at 05:29 EST:
If this license is used by wikipedia (and wikipedia want to do that) then there will be a large amount of info under the GSFDL and this will grow as others use that to create derivative works. There are many and varied ways that this info could be reused so we need to try to make this license usable for those. Examples: books, movies, comic books, animated movies (with source code for the animation), educational software, various databases.
Simpler Free Documentation License
Similarly to how FDL documents can be relicensed under the SFDL, it should be possible to relicense SFDL works 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. Compatibility between these two copyleft licenses is surely a good idea.
Free manuals are essential for free software.
Since this is a simple license and not limited to manuals, this section could be omitted or at least limited to its last two paragraphs.noted by metasj on 2007-02-08 at 22:11 EST:
This is a confusing section for readers who have come to the license from anything but a manual. If this section is left in without modification to refer generally to any document, it should not be at the start of the license.
Secondarily, this License assures the author and publisher the credit for their work, while sparing any appearance of being responsible for modifications made by others.
This sounds like the Moral Right of Paternity. Is it worth mentioning this explicitly?
JPG
JPEG (and MPEG) can be lossy, which harms downstream users' ability to use the work as it degrades when modified and resaved. Lossy formats may be transparent but they are not ideal.
Material stored in an otherwise Transparent file format in a way that thwarts or discourages subsequent substantial modification by others is not Transparent
Does this include DRM? DRM has this effect and is mentioned in the FDL. *Please* mention DRM in the SFDL as well, it can remove the freedoms of the licensed work without breaking the letter of the license. For an artist, DRM is cultural tivoisation.
This means giving all users the four essential freedoms
Please mention Fair Use/Fair Dealing! These are important rights for authors and other users. It is important for non-software licenses to not give the impression that in their absence there is no freedom to be defended.
If you publish printed copies (or copies in media that commonly have printed covers) of the Work, numbering more than 100
In total or in one go? And how does this interact with print-on-demand systems?
precisely this License
What about work licensed under this version or later?
20,000 characters of text
A chapter or article would be a better guideline. Again, beware of harming fair use unintentionally by placing a hard and fast limit on exerpts.
the copyright holder may then terminate your license at any time
For derived works, which copyright holder?noted by jsmith on 2007-05-07 at 14:26 EDT:
I belive the idea is any copyright holder. As with the GPL. They would of course only be revoking the license to their portion of the work, but that does not seem like a problem to me.noted by positron on 2007-08-26 at 08:22 EDT:
Yes, it should be specified *which* copyright holder. Any single copyright holder is enough? Or we require *all* of them?
national
noted by metasj on 2007-02-08 at 22:08 EST:"national agency" reads like a government agency. Is that the intent? If so, why must it be a national body (and not, say, a state one)?
Or, if it's intended to be a non-government organization, what is a "national" organization? Most any website is available globally.
Agreed. Why would it matter if this is a government agency, or a national one? Confusing adjective choice.noted by andrewpm on 2007-08-25 at 02:48 EDT:
I personally think that any website is sufficient. This is supposed to be the "Simpler" Free Documentation License, and requiring registration with some bureaucratic agency is unnecessary.
title distinct from that of the Work,
This makes it intensely tedious for multiple authors to revise a work collaboratively, or to hand off maintainership to a new maintainer.
This needs an opt-out clause where the author of the last version of the Work can allow you to reuse his title if he wants.
software.
"is computer programs". "Software" in the traditional definition includes anything stored on a hard disk whatsoever. Many licenes explicitly include "documentation" in "software".
Examples of suitable formats for Transparent copies of textual works include plain ASCII without markup, Texinfo input format
The purpose of this License is to make a work of authorship free
noted by arnomane on 2007-10-19 at 08:14 EDT:There is no real need for the GNU Simpler Free Documentation License: the GNU GPL is already suitable for making a work of authorship free. Writing yet another separate, incompatible, license only helps to balkanize the Free Software community: license proliferation is bad and should be avoided as much as possible. Adding one more license is a mistake made by the FSF and should be fixed as soon as possible.
The possible strategies to correct this mistake before it's too late, are: (a) the FSF avoids publishing the GSFDL, avoids publishing a new version of GFDL, stops recommending/promoting the GFDL, and relicenses the GNU manuals under the GNU GPL (b) the FSF avoids publishing the GSFDL, 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 (c) the FSF publishes the GSFDL and version 2 of the GFDL, both with an explicit conversion-to-GPL clause that permits relicensing of GSFDLed and GFDLed works under the GNU GPL
noted by frx on 2007-10-24 at 17:03 EDT:No this isn't possible at this stage. Do you know how much troubles we have creating verbatim Wikipedia copies (such as the German Wikipedia DVD) with the current GFDL?
Now imagine Wikipedia under the GPL 3. Even more fun for license trolls that want to get the Wikipedia article source code alongside a copy in HTML format. Yea.
So this idea of moving from GFDL 1.2 to GPL 3 is not a useful option.
arnomane: You seem to consider the source availability requirement of GNU GPL v3 as an issue, rather than as a feature. Maybe you would be more happy if Wikipedia were licensed under non-copyleft terms...
I instead see the source availability requirement as a key point of a copyleft license: when I don't need or want such a requirement, I choose non-copyleft licenses (e.g.: Expat license).
I personally would have been greatly pleased to see Wikipedia licensed under the terms of GNU GPL: unfortunately they did what I consider a bad choice, by adopting the GFDL...
human appreciation, rather than machine execution
As I said when commenting on the GFDLv2draft1, 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.
FREE MANUALS ARE ESSENTIAL
I largely agree with the meaning of this section, but I disagree on its placement. It's basically a short philosophical essay about free manuals, and should threfore be elsewhere: software freedom propaganda does not belong in license texts.noted by Garrett on 2007-02-09 at 17:25 EST:
Not only that, it simply doesn't apply to standalone uses of such a license (e.g. Wikipedia). This section would work well as a "manifesto" or "beliefs" page on fsf.org, but I don't believe it belongs in an otherwise no-nonsense license.
If anything, replace it with a single sentence appended somewhere (in the first or last section, maybe) along the lines of "The Free Software Foundation encourages authors of documentation or instructions bundled with free software to also release the documentation or instructions under a copyleft license" or some similar all-encompassing sentence, but even that is possibly going too far.
In its current state this section, despite being well-intentioned, is just inappropriate waffling.
the Work
As I said when commenting on the GFDLv2draft1, 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).
A work "based on" another work means any modified version for which permission is necessary under applicable copyright law
As I said for GPLv3draft2 and for GFDLv2draft1, it's good that 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 GPLv3draft2 and identical to those of GFDLv2draft1. 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.
A "Transparent" copy of the Work means
noted by chesky on 2007-07-10 at 13:39 EDT:The definition of "Transparent" copy is the same as found in GFDLv2draft1: as I said when commenting on the GFDL draft, it's 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.
Changing the language to something like “preferred modifiable form” would also solve the problem of someone conveying a vector-format image as a bitmap.
Examples of suitable formats for Transparent copies
As I already said when commenting on GFDLv2draft1, 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...
provided that this License, the copyright notices, and the license notice saying this License applies to the Work are reproduced in all copies
As I said in my comments to GFDLv2draft1, 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 GSFDL.noted by arnomane on 2007-10-19 at 09:30 EDT:
I support this. I'd also suggest something more. In case you don't provide a verbatim copy with the full license you should provide a "written offer" how and where to get one. See my comment http://gplv3.fsf.org/comments/rt/readsay.html?id=3593 on the excerpt clause. This can solve quite some problems e.g. with printed images.noted by arnomane on 2007-10-19 at 09:31 EDT:
I support this. I'd also suggest something more. In case you don't provide a verbatim copy with the full license you should provide a "written offer" how and where to get one. See my comment http://gplv3.fsf.org/comments/rt/readsay.html?id=3593 on the excerpt clause. This can solve quite some problems e.g. with printed images.
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
As I already stated with respect to GFDLv2draft1, the anti-DRM clause needs to be modified in order to become 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 GSFDLed 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 GSFDLed 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 GSFDLed 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."
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
As I said when commenting GFDLv2draft1, 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.
, in the form shown in the Addendum below
Same problem as in GFDLv2draf1: 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
noted by metasj on 2007-02-08 at 22:04 EST: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."
Even accompanying can be difficult. The referential requirements should be as limited in size as possible.
add to it an item stating at least the title, year, new authors, and publisher of the Modified Version
As I commented on the GFDLv2draf1, items B., D. and I. 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.noted by metasj on 2007-02-08 at 21:55 EST:
This still assumes quite a small number of authors and publishers. All new authors? &c.
preserve in the section all the substance and tone of each of the contributor acknowledgements and/or dedications given therein
Same comment as for GFDLv2draft1: item K. restricts the freedom to modify to the work, and hence makes 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".
Do not retitle any existing section to be Entitled "Endorsements"
Item M. restricts the modifiability of the work, since it forbids changing section titles so that they become Entitled "Endorsements". What if a section actually talks about endorsements? Why cannot it be Entitled "Endorsements"? Forbidding possibly appropriate titles is a non-free restriction.
I suggest dropping restrictions on section titles entirely.
You may add a section Entitled "Endorsements", provided it contains nothing but endorsements of your Modified Version
noted by chesky on 2007-07-10 at 13:51 EDT:As I said for GFDLv2draft1, 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"
“… and may not include endorsements of the original version unless they are clearly denoted as not applying to the modified version.”
The intent of the Endorsements clause seems to be to protect the endorsers from inadvertently endorsing a modified version they might not wish to. This may be necessary in order for G(S)FDL-licensed documents to be endorsed by those wary of misuse of their name—i.e., anyone whose endorsement might mean anything. We just need to be careful about the wording.
combined documents
We were talking about works in general, not documents. I think that here the word "documents" is misleading.
the combination
We were talking about a compilation, not a combination. Typo?
derivative works
noted by jraftery on 2007-10-28 at 14:34 EST:Same suggestion as for the GFDL: 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.
Sometimes compilations are produced with restrictive licenses applies to the whole work even though parts are freely licensed. Can we make it clear that if they apply such a copyright notice for the whole work then it becomes a collection (see section 6) rather than a compilation of independent works. To be considered a compilation each element needs to have separate copyright / licensing information so users are in no doubt what their rights are with respect to each independent work (I nearly wrote each section but of course collections have sections, compilations don't)
precisely this License
Does this disallow keeping a license like "either or both of the GNU SFDL and the GNU GPL"?
In addition, you must do these things in the Modified Version
With a free content license like this, it's even more important that procedural requirements don't limit the valid outlets of expression for derivative works than it is for computer programs. For a computer program, you really only want to deal with the result at a source file level, and it can have required-inclusion license text longer than the code itself without becoming useless.
With a free documentation license, we're talking largely about natural language content - you know, the languages that one uses for free expression. If a license is truly to be free, it needs to allow for free expression of the contents of the licensed work - not discriminating against forms of expression, since that becomes a limit on free expression.
Requirements for the form and content of the modified work - especially requirements to include specific sections (including a copy of this license) in derived works - outright prohibits a number usages in media other than a computer archive file or textual document. The most extreme case I can think of is the example of incorporating G[S]FDL content into a song that may get radio play.
The only solution I can see to this problem would be to allow an aggregate multi-licensed work including G[S]FDL content to include a single out-of-band pointer to licensing and acknowledgments info - i.e. the radio show can mention "Some of our songs today are licensed under free content licenses, for licensing and acknowledgment information see this radio show dot com slash license.
Even if the radio show example is too extreme, there are other media forms where including the full license text and invariant sections (even if that's *only* the history, acknowledgments, and dedications sections). Consider a television commercial that shows the illustrated cover of a GSFDL book. Consider a one page splat sheet being handed out at a conference. A magazine article.
precisely this License,
noted by flaschen on 2007-02-18 at 14:03 EST:Is content under the GSFDL not relicensable under the normal GFDL? I just wondered, but I can see why you might not want this to be possible (you don't want back or front cover texts added)
Also, what about compatibility with the CC-BY-SA. It would be a shame to have two uncompatible licenses which have virtually the same terms. Why not allow GSFDL content to be relicensed under CC-BY-SA
I think SGFDL content should be relicensable under GFDL. That would allow additional restrictions (i.e Front/Back-Cover texts), but that is also true of relicensing from LGPL to GPL. I think the idea is that new authors can add appropriate restrictions as long as it remains free and copyleft. Just as with current LGPL code, you can usually go back to the source to get the LGPL/SFDL version without additions.noted by ArneBab on 2007-02-20 at 15:19 EST:
I don't think it should be relicenseable under the GFDL, only under the "GFDL without invariant sections" and vice versa (because they are equal). If I give it free under the SFDL (how about the name "Strong FDL"? :) ), I don't want anyone to add invariant stuff to it. And CC-BY-SA has one very bad disadvantage: It doesn't require the source to be free (that's where all cc licenses I know about simply break (except cc-GPL). Content under the CC-BY-SA can be put into a flash animation, and so noone will ever be able to work with it in any meaningful way which must be prohibited for free content. It would be good to have a cc-GNU SFDL and a cc-GNU FDL, though, just like there is a cc-GPL. I've been waiting for a cc-GNU FDL for a long time, now, because that would allow me to use the cc-metadata scheme with a really free content license. Also interesting is, if the GNU SFDL and the artlibre license are or can be made compatible: http://artlibre.org/licence/lal/en/noted by ArneBab on 2007-02-20 at 15:20 EST:
I don't think it should be relicenseable under the GFDL, only under the "GFDL without invariant sections" and vice versa (because they are equal).
If I give it free under the SFDL (how about the name "Strong FDL"? :) ), I don't want anyone to add invariant stuff to it.
And CC-BY-SA has one very bad disadvantage: It doesn't require the source to be free (that's where all cc licenses I know about simply break (except cc-GPL).
Content under the CC-BY-SA can be put into a flash animation, and so noone will ever be able to work with it in any meaningful way which must be prohibited for free content.
It would be good to have a cc-GNU SFDL and a cc-GNU FDL, though, just like there is a cc-GPL. I've been waiting for a cc-GNU FDL for a long time, now, because that would allow me to use the cc-metadata scheme with a really free content license.
Also interesting is, if the GNU SFDL and the artlibre license are or can be made compatible:
http://artlibre.org/licence/lal/en/
PS: linebreaks should be converted automatically... sorry for the double-posting.
front cover
this should say "front cover of first page"; some short works, such as a "cheat sheet" or reference card should have no cover. Even then, it should probably be allowed to be placed anywhere obvious in works shorter than 8 pages where layout may be very important.
9. TERMINATION
noted by jsmith on 2007-05-07 at 14:24 EDT:as with the GPL this section appears to greatly weaken the license unless the party in breach of the license is required to repair the breach.
e.g. Even after expiry of the 60 day period, you are still required to act to repair the breach, e.g. by distributing a transparent copy where only an opaque copy has been distributed. probably this needs to be written very carefully though since they could be in breach through losing the transparent version or avoid responsibility by deliberately losing it, depending on the exact text.
I believe that any act of distributing is a violation. So for a web site the 60 days would be not from the time of posting a link to download the content, but 60 days from the removal of the said link. Removing the link (and deleting the file from the server) would definitely be a way to stop infringing in the case that the infringer could not (for whatever reason) provide a transparent copy. This seems quite analogous to the equivalent section of the GPL, and seems fine to me.
When users modify the program, adding or changing features, they must be free to update the manual too, to keep it accurate
noted by fabbe on 2007-07-14 at 05:01 EDT:A general comment is that all the licenses have "too much stuff" and could be made shorter without a change of the sense. As an example I think this could be rewritten as When the program changes, users should be able to keep the documentation up to date.
a) this is actually mroe accurate since users might want to update it even for other peoples changes.
b) since it's shorter it reduces the clutter in the license.
I realise there's some sense sacrificed, but I think it's very much worth it for a less wordy license.
"When users change the program, they should be free to change the documentation to reflect this."
as long as its contents are the same and are clearly visible
protection of meta data should probably be included. What about e.g. animation effects in an SVG picture?
contact the authors
this should be optional and an alternative such as looking at a URL should be possible. I probably wouldn't want too many people to contact me if my work was too popular. I'd rather they looked at a web page or blog or something.noted by jraftery on 2007-10-28 at 16:32 EST:
This can be managed by the authors depending on the contact info they provide.
GNU Simpler Free Documentation License
The license shares a lot of text with the GFDL. Perhaps this could be improved similar to the GPL--LGPL solution?
propagate
Shouldn't we use "convey" here, instead of "propagate" or "publish" or "distributing", like in the GPL?
And in section 3 (copying in quantity) otr section 0 (the preamble) the term "publish" is also used, but not included here, then the term "convey" is used, but also not defined here.
This looks like incoherences of terminology. Then convery is defined, but the difference is quite difficult to understand (it is any kind of propagation)
H
newline missing in this numbered list
D
newline missing in this numbered list
C
newline missing in this numbered listnoted by jsmith on 2007-05-07 at 14:14 EDT:
II would call this a lettered list, but I agree newlines are missing.
B
newline missing in this numbered list
M
newline missing in this numbered list
art and fiction
How about digital photogrqaphy (lacks 'transparent' .psd or .3ds source that art may have though), web pages, science data (often multiple and sometimes exotic media types) or sound recordings?
Opaque formats include proprietary formats that can be read and edited only by proprietary word processors, SGML or XML for which the DTD, schema and/or processing tools are not generally available, and the machine-generated HTML, PostScript or PDF produc
the open document formats isn't really any more more human-readable in notepad than the office formats. The office formats are still more widespread than the opendocument formats.
front cover
Art, Photos, and Sound Recordings usually don't have any 'covers' as in book-covers or title pages. Some artwork can have an equivilant of source code though (.psd format where all the layering and stuff is preserved).noted by pboddie on 2007-04-02 at 10:48 EDT:
As suggested elsewhere, the metadata of artwork or image files could be appropriate.
If you publish printed copies (or copies in media that commonly have printed covers) of the Work, numbering more than 100,
I don't want this requirement on my users really. Since this is the simple version, I say chuck it.
Examples of transparent image formats include PNG, XCF and JPG.
Artwork produced in vector form may be editable as a bitmap, but would it not be a good idea to stipulate that the transparent form of such artwork is in the original vector format, or at least allow or recommend that the author/artist make such a stipulation? I would like original SVG artwork to remain as editable for recipients as it was originally, not to have intermediaries release modified bitmaps such that subsequent recipients end up with images that cannot be modified on the same terms.noted by jraftery on 2007-10-28 at 17:42 EST:
Even bitmaps can have layer information which would be nice to have if you wanted to edit it.
Music has separate tracks and sme of the tracks are midi encoded.
Animated movies have source code defining every element and defining how it moves. If the original was created using a software package then the best format for editing may well be the file format for that programme - though most of those packages have some form of data interchange format which is supposed to make your data more transportable. The file format which is used for editing should be available with more open formats, which may not include all the meta data, also made available.
Simpler Free Documentation License
It would be very helpful to have a documentation license compatible with the GPL. I attempted to leave a comment about this on the GFDL page (some time ago; Brett entered it for me).noted by jamesgnz on 2007-05-09 at 17:29 EDT:
Write the SFDL as a set of additional permissions to the GPL (like the LGPL). Maybe call it the Printing GPL or Document GPL.noted by jamesgnz on 2007-05-11 at 04:57 EDT:
The SFDL states that it is intended for "any work of authorship meant for human appreciation, rather than machine execution". Whereas the GPL caters for executable works that are practical, rather than for human appreciation. However the lines are poorly drawn.
It is not difficult to imagine that someone might want to use fiction as the basis for a game (in fact, it happens often), nor that someone might want to use non-fiction as the basis for interactive teaching material. However, in each case, the former is likely to be licensed under the SFDL, whereas the later would require the GPL.
Games are intended for both machine execution and human appreciation. Like fiction, they often have (to a greater or lesser extent) characters, dialogue, and a plot which will inevitably convey a moral. Interactive teaching material is also intended for both machine execution and human appreciation. And like non-fiction, it conveys concepts and ideas. So if the SFDL addresses important issues regarding works intended for human appreciation, then the GPL is flawed in not addressing these issues.
Other than that, the SFDL also allows extra permissions for printing documents. However, this function could be performed by a set of additional permissions to the GPL, the way the LGPL works.
Version 1,
This should at least be the same number as the FDL; as noted, the first version of the LGPL was 2. I do not support numbering it version 3 just to "keep up with the GPL".
but changing it is not allowed
I think that modifying the SFDL (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. As the 'preamble' (the sections 'What this License Does' and 'Free Manuals are Essential') isn't functional, as it's not part of the section which actually acts as a copyright licence, I think prohibiting people from modifying it is acceptable. 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, the terms 'GNU' and 'Simpler Free Documentation License' are removed, and [the preamble, however you want to define it] is removed."noted by jamesgnz on 2007-05-09 at 17:32 EDT:
The entire SFDL document should be licensed under itself, so it can be included in SFDL documents without licensing issues.noted by positron on 2007-08-26 at 08:13 EDT:
For practical purposes I think that allowing modified licenses would imply a hugely complicated and ever-changing license "compatibility matrix", vastly complicating the combination of works, for little benefit.
Hence I disagree with the proposed change, and I support the current 'only verbatim copy' policy, for this and any other free software or free documentation license.
If a user really wants to make a similar license he/she is of course free to write a new document, "in the same spirit" as the GFDL but written from scratch, with new words. Even if not an ethical problem, in my opinion license proliferation should be discouraged: we have to remember that licenses are a *mean* and not an end in free software. We should concentrate on advancing the state of software and documentation with *productive* work, not on dividing the community by focusing on minor licensing points.
WHAT THIS LICENSE DOES
This should be called "Preamble", as it is in the GPL.
To "propagate" a work means doing anything with it that requires permission under applicable copyright law, except making modifications that you do not share.
noted by jraftery on 2007-10-28 at 18:00 EST:I was under the impression that modifications which are not shared were not under the realm of copyright law, which would make this sentence rather unnecessary.
I may well, of course, be wrong.
This varies from country to country and over time. In some countries you are not allowed to make copies for personal use. Other countries could ba this at any time. Best to make it clear.noted by pedroros on 2008-03-18 at 20:23 EST:
At least in the U.S. anything you do whether private or public is automatically copyrighted. Therefore, modifications which are not shared are copyrighted.
However, you may charge a fee in exchange for copies.
To me at least, putting this line directly next to the clause disallowing DRM implies that DRM would be a more effective and sensible approach to collecting revenue by selling copies. This line of thinking, of course, is questionable at best, and ought not to be encouraged.
Furthermore, the line in question really doesn't have much to do with DRM, so removing it from the DRM clause would seem logical anyway.
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.
Simpler
If GNU SFDL is intended to be a simpler version of GNU FDL, it could be named GNU LFDL (Lesser Free Documentation License) regarding the difference between GNU GPL and GNU LGPL, which is a simpler version of GNU GPL.noted by tokigun on 2007-06-05 at 10:55 EDT:
N.B. I also disagree the use of word "simple", because its license term is not so "simple" (inherently a lawful text is difficult to be simple...), and it actually means that some possible option is discarded. That is one of the reason I suggest the name GNU LFDL.noted by pedroros on 2008-03-18 at 19:37 EST:
I disagree with the idea that the GNU SFDL should be renamed GNU LFDL. The reason is that the GNU LGPL is not a simpler version of the GNU LGPL. The LGPL is a license not intended to be a simpler version of the GPL but to have a weaker copyleft. The GNU SFDL, as far as I can see does not have a weaker copyleft, instead it has taken out several controversial aspects of the GNU FDL such as cover text, invariant sections, and so forth.noted by pedroros on 2008-03-18 at 19:38 EST:
I disagree with the idea that the GNU SFDL should be renamed GNU LFDL. The reason is that the GNU LGPL is not a simpler version of the GNU LGPL. The LGPL is a license not intended to be a simpler version of the GPL but to have a weaker copyleft. The GNU SFDL, as far as I can see does not have a weaker copyleft, instead it has taken out several controversial aspects of the GNU FDL such as cover text, invariant sections, and so forth.noted by pedroros on 2008-03-18 at 19:43 EST:
oops... I meant that the LGPL is not a simpler version of the GNU GPL
0a. FREE MANUALS ARE ESSENTIAL
not really relivant to wider free uses.
Examples of suitable formats for Transparent copies of
nees to be added that the intial format of a document will be considered transparant otheerwise we hit problems involveing scans of text in djvuy format
Preserve the section Entitled "History
causes issues for documents with large numbers of midifications. I would sugegst removeing and relying on section C. currently this would require a print out of the George W. Bush article on wikipedia to have a history with 33,566 enteries attached.
Preserve all the copyright notices of the Work.
This creates problems in that it creates an invariant section and makes it imposible to remove image watermarks.
0a. FREE MANUALS ARE ESSENTIAL
Why I think it should be deleted:
1) No propaganda should be placed on Licenses. 2) It's too manual-specific, instead of talking of "documents" and GNU licenses are meant to be used for everything. Leave evrything open to creativity so if someone knows how to use this license for a scuplture, (s)he can do it!
to do
...with access to formats which make that convenient.
"that" refers to "change the work" so "to do" is redundant here.
MANUALS
In the previous section, the scope of the license is "...any work regardless of the subject matter..." but "...principally for works whose purpose is instruction or reference...".
So this entire section should reflect the broader scope of literary or artistic creations.
Perhaps the section could be titled "FREEDOM OF KNOWLEDGE IS ESSENTIAL" and then go on to explain about the importance of free manuals and also other free expressions.
contains
Does this mean that the notice must be part of the work? Would "include" be a better choice of words? Not sure what is legally intended here.noted by ktucker on 2007-09-07 at 11:17 EDT:
How about "indicated" - e.g. permit a URL to the license?
can be
Perhaps "...is distributed..."?noted by jraftery on 2007-10-28 at 18:04 EST:
Should be "may be" since we are talking about what is permitted, not what is possible.
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 of the document available as described in section 3 as though you had distributed 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.
document
The sentence first talks about a Work, but then refers to "the document". It should probably refer to "the Work" throughout.
Authors and publishers of previous versions can release you from above requirements to cite or refer to them or their versions.
If someone obtains this permission, it would be good to document this somehow, so that further recipients of the work know that these requirements have been lifted somewhere in the chain. In particular, they may obtain another version in which this permission has never been given. Also how do these requirements propagate from one recipient to the next? Does the release from requirements automatically apply to all downstream recipients and potential publishers of modified versions?noted by jraftery on 2007-10-28 at 15:44 EST:
Des this sentence refer to the "Endorsements" section or to the Acknowledgements section? If it's about Acknowledgements then it needs to be moved to that sub-section.
Obtaining the authors agreement by any means except the author reissuing with this ammendment added to the license seems fraught with problems such as are described in the comment above.
to use their names for publicity for or to assert or imply endorsement of any Modified Version.
Suggestion: "...to use their names to gain publicity for or to assert or imply endorsement of any Modified Version."
You must delete all sections Entitled "Endorsements".
Suggested addition: "... but may add a new section Entitled "Endorsements", provided it contains nothing but endorsements of the combined work."
provided you insert a copy of this License into the extracted work
Is it not enough to include a copy of this license text along with the work?
is called an "aggregate"
It seems that a term is being defined here. Perhaps it should be defined above with the rest of the defined terms. This could add some clarity.
TRANSLATION
This section should be more clearly split into two parts: one that talks about translations of the Work, and another that talks about translations of this License. Currently it's a bit confusing.
provided 60 days have not elapsed since the last violation.
Does this mean that the copyright holder(s) lose their ability to put the licensee on hold after 60 days of the last violation?
I'm not sure what is intended here, a clearer wording is needed.
GNU Simpler Free Documentation License
does anyone know if this is going to be compatible with one of the CC licenses?
must be free to update the manual too, to keep it accurate.
There are further excellent arguments for free manuals. If you're going to include an argument in the license, I suggest including other arguments: manuals need to be corrected even when the program doesn't change, manuals need to be improved when they're vague or poorly written, manuals describe interfaces and need to be free in order for interfaces to be freely implemented, etc.
Perhaps it is better, as with the GPL v.3, to make the argument "auxilliary" to the license rather than part of it.
A "Transparent" copy of the Work
noted by arnomane on 2007-10-19 at 09:17 EDT:There is a very similar concept going on here. But the GPL says it better.
When I get a manual, if I want to modify it, I want a *source code* copy. Texinfo, not generated TeX. The license currently *doesn't require that*. It should require that a "transparent" copy be in a "format preferred for making modifications to it".
This means the GPL is currently a better documentation license than the proposed GSFDL.
Now, there's another requirement in the "Transparent" provision beyond the GPL source code requirement. That it be in a "format whose specification is available to the general public". This is a good addition.
Don't reinvent the wheel. Start with the GPL definition and add as needed.
There is a nasty problem. Documents don't have a clear distinction between source code and object code. You can't clearly say: This is the source and this is the generated object.
For example: Someone reuses a Wikipedia text (MediaWiki markup) on his own website (HTML), mabye even with own modifications. Do you really want the person to provide a copy in MediaWiki markup as well? Or what to do with the WikiPress books compiled from the German language Wikipedia by Wikipedians and Directmedia GmbH (I was a Wikipedian responsible for one of these books)? The internal "source code" after conversion was Dookbook-XML and finally some InDesign format. The format provided for download was PDF (exactly the same layout like the book).
This problem of source code vs. object code was the very reason for the definition of opaque copies as a replacement (I remember an old "Brave GNU world" column by Georg Greve that explicitely mentioned this).
So you can't simply take the GPL definition.
Examples of suitable formats for Transparent copies of textual works
Which is frankly a mistake. Just say "Preferred form for modification" or whatever the current GPL phrase is. Then add the "format whose specification is available to the general public" requirement.
Preserve the section Entitled "History", Preserve its Title, and add to it an item stating at least the title, year, new authors, and publisher of the Modified Version.
As written, vast quantities of junk could be put into the history section and would be non-removable. This would generate invariant sections.
If the entire History section must be preserved with no deletions, then the contents of it must be severely restricted. As long as it only contains the required material in I and J it would be fine, but as written authors could add all kinds of extraneous stuff to it; this must be prohibited in the license.
Perhaps there is a less intrusive way of requiring the preservation of the history of the work. The GPL v.3's requirements (providing a statement that you modified the work and an appropriate date) are much much looser in this regard -- and so are much less subject to abuse.
immediately after the copyright notices,
CDs normally print the copyright notices on the CD itself. I suppose this would not be an option with a GSFDL-licensed CD and the alternative of printing the notices in the accompanying booklet would have to be used -- getting the license notice onto a CD surface sounds nontrivial. Perhaps some advice in the addendum as to what to do in this situation (also applies to audio tapes)?noted by jraftery on 2007-10-28 at 16:16 EST:
A simple copyright and license acknowledgement on the CD or the insert (track 3 by Joe Shmoe, sung by Jim Shmoe, released under the GSFDL) with more info as a text file or metadata encoded on the CD
Include an unaltered copy of this License
This appears to require that the License be *part* of the work. For an audiotape or a visual artwork, this makes no sense and the License should be available *along with* the work.
Likewise for the various "sections". Unless this is made clear, this license is unsuitable for anything except text.
it can be used for any work regardless of the subject matter, even for art and fiction.
noted by jraftery on 2007-10-28 at 18:26 EST:The entire license is written with assumptions that it is a license for a book. Before this statement can honestly be made, it needs to be gone over with a fine-tooth comb considering the possibilities that the work is, for instance, - An audio CD - A visual artwork
Essentially, the crucial point is that for many formats auxilliary material like the license, history, dedications, etc. may need to be distributed *along with* the work, not *as part of* the work. The language throughout the license treats them *as part of* the work. (Same with the GFDL).
The GPL currently is substantially more format-neutral than this; I expect that this problem can be fixed with some care. However, it will require a substantial overhaul of both the GSFDL and the GFDL, and I suggest increasing the number of planned drafts by one because of this.
Remember this license will be used by wikipedia and by many other wikis covering everything from software manuals to knitting patterns, recipes family trees, machine designs, building details.
Derivative works can include animated movies, databases for navigation, paintings, plays, buildings, sewage networks, tasty dishes, wooly jumpers and others we can't imagine yet. This is the FSF free culture license.
derivative works of the document must themselves be free in the same sense
There are a lot of works created under the GNU Free Documentation License, especially in the Wikipedia project. At the same, there are a lot of works on the Web under a Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike license. The two licenses are very similar in spirit. Has the FSF considered working on license compatibility so that users of one license can use works from another license? I feel certain that the Free Content community would benefit.
http://creativecommons.org/compatiblelicenses is the link to more information at Creative Commons.
(Full disclosure: Two weeks ago Creative Commons hired me as a software engineer, but I'm in no way speaking for them with this comment.)
can accompany every copy of the program
In the spirit of the manual accompanying the program, I think it would be helpful if the Free Software Foundation suggested to authors of software that they license the documentation under a FDL/SFDL license *plus* the same license as the software it documents.
It would be helpful because sometimes it is nice to include verbatim strings from documentation in the software. As this happens, the license of the software can be very confusing to downstream recipients.
0a. FREE MANUALS ARE ESSENTIAL
For some reason, this section does not appear in the FDL draft, only in this SFDL draft. Why?noted by emvigo on 2007-08-13 at 13:58 EDT:
I have already commented this should be deleted. It makes people think this license is only manual-focused, when it is able to be used for many other things. Also, I personally think there shouldn't be this kind propaganda texts in licenses.
3. COPYING IN QUANTITY
Is this whole paragraph _really_ necessary? In my opinion there should be a simple rule: as less restrictions as possible, as many as necessary to protect freedom. I mean, this should be a SIMPLE (non-software) content license, not only a simpler one than the GFDLv1.2noted by potto on 2007-11-29 at 10:26 EST:
So how to address the problem of mass production of a book in area that people do not idea that there is a free copy on the net?
title distinct from that of the Work
noted by andrewpm on 2007-08-25 at 02:52 EDT:I mean, on your licensing page (http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/), you critisize the LaTeX Project Public License 1.2 because of this restriction: "This license contains complex and annoying restrictions on how to publish a modified version, including one requirement that falls just barely on the good side of the line of what is acceptable: that any modified file must have a new name." And imho you are right with that! So what should be the diffrence in case of content?
The biggest danger for free culture I can see is the incompatibility between diffrent free licenses (even bigger than DRM): incompatibility destroys the _basic_ concept of the free content culture: the possibility to take diffrent pieces of free works and create a new free work out of it. If this is not possible, the freedom is not there - even if both works are published under a free license. That should be the maxim when creating free licenses. Anything else is less important.
What constitutes a new title? Incrementing a version counter? Given that this is supposed to be a simple license, and it might be used for general artistic and literary works (e.g. Wikipedia), this type of provision is completely unnecessary. This sounds too much like the TeX license to me.noted by emvigo on 2007-08-26 at 12:31 EDT:
Let me disagree. I think this requirement must be kept, as it clearly states a difference between versions and avoids the possibility of confussions, specially in artistic works, where a work should be easily identifiable with its author. Yes, you could take a look into the History section, but that's not enough at least in my opinion: it requires to open the document (or book or whatever), search inside only to see which's version is the one you have.
This requirement helps the user when dealing with several different versions.
precisely this License,
Please make this license compatible to:
*in the one direction from CC-BY to SFDL *in both directions to the CC-BY-SA *in one direction from SFDL to the GPLv3 (there is _indeed_ a use for that!!) *and even in one direction to the GPLv2 The biggest danger for free culture I can see is the incompatibility between diffrent free licenses (even bigger than DRM): incompatibility destroys the _basic_ concept of the free content culture: the possibility to take diffrent pieces of free works and create a new free work out of it. If this is not possible, the freedom is not there - even if both works are published under a free license. That should be the maxim when creating free licenses. Anything else - even a strong copyleft, even though I support and love the idea of copyleft - is less important.
That is the reason I strongly dislike the CC-NC-licenses. For this reason ND is even less worse, since you can't change it and can ask the owner to relicense it - which is not possible with a work with many contributions. The great semi-free software POV-Ray has exactly this problem at the moment: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/POV-Ray#Licensing
Please remove as many restrictions as possbile, because they mean bondage not freedom and make copyleft please only that strong, that it supports freedom and does not hinder it.
BTW: I am very greatful to you, FSF, that you made the GPLv3 at least compatible to Apache - thanks!
12 normal printed pages
12 pages is far too small to be useful. Take the Wikipedia article World War II, for example: 39 pages if printed from Firefox, 54 pages if printed from Microsoft Word. This limit would exclude virtually all of Wikipedia's best (FA-quality) articles. I would suggest changing it to 50 pages.noted by jraftery on 2007-10-28 at 14:15 EST:
I agree. This should be for "short works" not "Excerpts". Works such as a wikipedia article, a chapter in a compilation, a single song, a single picture, a Youtube video. These are all longer than the limits here but to add a title page, a history page etc. to any of these would be excessive.
Could the URL link be an acceptable alternative for works of any length? For a wikipedia article a link to the history page is usually much more useful than a static copy of that page (and a lot of software manuals are developed using wikis these days).
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.
Replacement, move this into chapter 1 (transparent copies): "Copies distributed with technical measures to obstruct or control the reading or further copying of the copies you make or distribute are also not Transparent."
Reasons: You cannot clearly make a difference between opaque copies and DRM protected copies (e.g. look at the anti-copy features of PDF). Furthermore confusion wether you are allowed to distribute GFDL-content over DRM-techniques if you provide _at the same time_ the content without DRM can be avoided.
6a. EXCERPTS
Replacement text, move this into chapter 2 (verbatim copying): "If you do not wish or if it is difficult to reproduce the License in a copy of the Document you have to accompany it with a written offer to give any third party a copy of the Document with this License reproduced, following the conditions in section 3, independent from the number of copies provided."
Reasons: The 20000 characters excerpt thing sounds all nice and such but in practice it doesn't work out. Two frequently requested reuses of Wikipedia content on info@wikimedia.org: a) Reuse of a GFDL image for advertising b) Distribution of single Wikipedia articles in a loose paper sheet collection (e.g. for educational purposes, were a publishing company provides a material collection that gets updated on a per article basis via an abo, were you get the updated articles as loose paper sheets that you can exchange in your material collection).
So these frequent requested use cases could be easily solved by the above replacement (Printing a small footer like "Content licensed under GSFDL, full digital copy with license conditions avialable at XYZ (URL, adress, whatever)". This is the same the written offer providing the source code of GPL'ed software.
.
Insert this sentence: "However you can shorten an existing History section to the distinct entities that created or published the Document."
Resons: In Wikipedia we have *big* troubles with people claiming that third parties have to preserve the full article history as seen in the history tab of an article. This is the same utterly nonsense as if people would have to name every change in a Subversion or CVS repository. An "entity" in my example would be "Wikipedia". So you could shorten the history to "Article Foobar, taken from Wikipedia, version from 1. January 2007, modified by MyThirdPartyCompany on 1. Feburary 2007". This would be a *huge* help for verbatim distributions of Wikipedia (such as the German Wikipedia DVD).
authors
Replace "authors" by "authors/entities".
Reasons: In Wikipedia it is nearly impossible properly acknowledging the authors, cause there are so many and cause there are so many metrics how to acknowledge whom (e.g. wether to acknowledge persons whose contibutions aren't in the current version, such as vandal edits).
See als my next comment on the dot of this sentence (adding a further sentence), which is related to it.
authors
Replace "authors" by "authors/entities".
Reasons: In Wikipedia it is nearly impossible properly acknowledging the authors, cause there are so many and cause there are so many metrics how to acknowledge whom (e.g. wether to acknowledge persons whose contibutions aren't in the current version, such as vandal edits).
See als my previous comment on the above naming of "author" and look at the comment on the dot of the previous sentence (adding a further sentence).
authors
Replace "authors" by "authors or entities"
Reasons: In Wikipedia it is nearly impossible properly acknowledging the authors, cause there are so many and cause there are so many metrics how to acknowledge whom (e.g. wether to acknowledge persons whose contibutions aren't in the current version, such as vandal edits). So third parties (such as the German Wikipedia DVD) have *big* troubles and end up naming every author as seen in the article history tab.
See als my next comment on paragraph I and the below mentions of "author".
the copyright notices
Replace "the copyright notices" by "previous credits". Otherwise people will claim that I am not allowed to remove a watermark out of an image and replace it by a credit info along side the image (see also geni's comment).
changing the actual title
should be "will require changing the actual title in the translated version". The titles in the English version should remain unchanged.
have registered the work's license with a national agency
If you provide a link back to the original that should be enough. Obviously this only applies where the original is on the web but that probably applies in most cases.
In some cases the original will be on some free hosting site. That should be as close to an 'agency' as we ever get.
Version 1,
If works licensed under the GFDL 1 or later are to be relicensed under this license then it must state explicitly that this license is a successor to GFDL 1. Making this V2 will help.
0a. FREE MANUALS ARE ESSENTIAL
This philosophical essay has no place in a license, especially a "simpler" license. Also, most of the wording of this section is irrelevent to Wikipedia, which will be the largest user of this license by far (as the current plan in the Wikipedia community is to migrate to this license once it is available).noted by pedroros on 2008-03-18 at 19:52 EST:
Although I agree that this section of "Free Manuals are Essential" should not form part of the license itself, I think that the text itself should belong to a preamble, because that's the reason for being of this license. I agree with jamesgnz that the section titled "What This License Does" should be renamed "Preamble" just like in the GPL, and that this text be added to the Preamble.
You need not include a copy of this License in the Work if you have registered the work's license with a national agency that maintains a network server through which the general public can find out its license.
This section requires a bit more explanation. What "national agencies" is this referring to?
may be replaced by one or more publicly accessible URLs
This is the simpler license. If people want all the stuff they can choose the FDL. Couldn't this simpler arrangement be available as an option for all copying under the SFDL? Remember much of the copying will be done by posting modified versions on the web. How many copies does a web site count as? If I take your SFDL licensed animated dinosaur and incorporate it in my SFDL licensed movie that I post on the web how then how should I fulfill the SFDL requirements?
COPYING IN QUANTITY
I am the creator of potto project an open content textbooks project (see at www.potto.org). In this project we have two popular textbooks. The problem that we have is that publishers publish our books but we do not have a copy of this publishing. Buying one own book is result of this license. The remedy is that the publisher of more than of 200 copies or so have to send two copies to the authors.
H. Include an unaltered copy of this License
H. Include an unaltered (except for formatting) copy of this license, a link to the URL, or the URL address in a printed copy.
Reason: Requiring actual inclusion of the license is impractical for many documents.
TERMINATION
I am not sure where this should go, but somewhere there should be provisions whereby the author of a document originally licensed under GFDL can terminate the license.
TERMINATION
I would like to know what happens if someone says: "Copyright (C) . Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation" and the License is NOT included in the document, nor is there any reference to where a copy can be found. What is the status of such a document?
make
confusing
If you publish printed copies (or copies in media that commonly have printed covers) of the Work, numbering more than 100, the front cover must clearly and unambiguously present the full title
There are so many problems with this sentence that it really is easy to ask the question "what does the FSF imagine documentation is?". I have the sinking feeling the FSF thinks that : 1. documentation isnt as important as code, otherwise the FSF would sincerely try and give documentation the same freedoms as code 2. documentation = book
It is requested, but not required, that you contact the authors of the Work well before conveying any large number of copies, to give them a chance to provide you with an updated version of the Work.
Is this part of the GPL? Come on...what is the point of this call back to the authors? Its simple...the FSF thinks documentation is secondary to code. IT IS NOT. A good manual about general programming principles is better and more worthwhile for the world than a crap IDE. Does the GPL require a programmer to request a 'user' gets the latest copy of the IDE before distributing it? no...so why ask someone to track down the author of a manual? bizarre
Use a title distinct from that of the Work, and from those of previous versions of the Work as listed in the History section.
If I make a tweak to GPL source code and distribute it I can still distribute the code without changing the name...right? Why force this for books. Again, the FSF has a very strange idea of what documentation actually is. Documentation is not a monolithic book authored by one person and published on paper by a publisher. We do nto have to protect business models by protecting the publisher via unsustainable and artificial constraints on the distribution of content. Documentation should flow as freely as the code - this is essential. If it can not do this it cannot flow _with_ the code from one person to the other, and if it cannot do this it is not free.
Title Page
the FSF seems to know the one and only template for documentation. it must have a Title page, credits section, cover, history page....this is not a description of any free documentation I know. It _is_ a description of a commodity that is out moded - single authored printed book produced by a publisher. I think if the FSF want to keep referring to these sections that must apparently be in all documentation then they should provide a template with the license.
four years
four years
this is entirely arbitrary,..why 4 years? why any period at all?
You may combine the Work with other works released under this License,
It is unlikely this will happen as this license is practically unusable - its too complex and beyond most human readers to implement or use to recombine content from distinct sources.
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.
Completely arbitrary and unnecessary. Stop trying to protect the publishing industry and protect freedom instead.
GNU Simpler Free Documentation License
Still not simple or easy to understand.
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 limit the length on an excerpt? As long as the license is O.K., it's fine, isn't it?
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 text features the same issues as that of GFDL section 2.
Comment 1819: Unusual section number
Regarding the text:
In section: gsfdl.excerpts.0.0
Submitted by: brett on 2006-09-26 at 13:35 EDT
1 agree: r4f
noted by brett on 2006-09-26 at 13:35 EDT:
collapse children