First draft of the GNU Free Documentation License v2

[Posted September 26, 2006 by corbet]

From:		GPLv3 Information <info-gplv3-AT-gplv3.fsf.org>
To:		info-press-AT-gnu.org
Subject:		[Info-gplv3] Discussion draft of new GNU Free Documentation License released
Date:		Tue, 26 Sep 2006 14:19:15 -0400


BOSTON, September 26, 2006--The Free Software Foundation
(FSF) today released the first discussion draft for version
2 of the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL). In addition
to being the official documentation license of the GNU
Project, the GFDL is used by many other free documentation
projects, including Wikipedia.

Accompanying this revision release of the GFDL is a new
companion license, called the GNU Simpler Free Documentation
License (GSFDL).

This release marks the beginning of a public discussion and
review process, with the goal being the production of the
best free documentation licenses possible. The FSF has
invited everyone to read the new drafts and contribute
comments at http://gplv3.fsf.org/doclic-dd1-guide.html.

The new license texts have wording intended to improve
internationalization, to allow for easier excerpting and
distribution, and to be more clear about their application
to media formats other than text.

Documentation licenses exist because free manuals are
essential for free software. But the GFDL and GSFDL are not
limited to software documentation. While the FSF recommends
these licenses "principally for works whose purpose is
instruction or reference," they state clearly in Section 0
of each license that each can be used for "any work of
authorship meant for human appreciation, rather than machine
execution."

The GFDL 1.1 was released in 2000. It was revised and
released in 2002 as version 1.2.

Media contact:

Brett Smith
Compliance Engineer
Free Software Foundation
617-542-5942
brett@fsf.org

About the FSF

The Free Software Foundation, founded in 1985, is dedicated
to promoting computer users' right to use, study, copy,
modify, and redistribute computer programs. The FSF promotes
the development and use of free (as in freedom)
software--particularly the GNU operating system and its
GNU/Linux variants--and free documentation for free
software. The FSF also helps to spread awareness of the
ethical and political issues of freedom in the use of
software. Their Web site, located at www.fsf.org, is an
important source of information about GNU/Linux. Donations
to support their work can be made at http://donate.fsf.org.
Their headquarters are in Boston, MA, USA

-- 
John Sullivan
Program Administrator        | Phone: (617)542-5942 x23    
51 Franklin Street, 5th Fl.  | Fax:   (617)542-2652	
Boston, MA 02110-1301 USA    | GPG:   AE8600B6
_______________________________________________
Info-gplv3 mailing list
Info-gplv3@gplv3.fsf.org
http://gplv3.fsf.org

First impressions

Posted Sep 26, 2006 18:46 UTC (Tue) by corbet (editor, #1) [Link] (4 responses)

The FDL is little changed by the revision. The things people don't like - such as invariant sections - are still there. There is an interesting reference to the "GNU Wiki License," whatever that might be.

The simplified version gets rid of invariant sections as such. Sections called "acknowledgments" and "dedications" remain de-facto invariant sections, however.

First impressions

Posted Sep 26, 2006 19:06 UTC (Tue) by atai (subscriber, #10977) [Link] (3 responses)

It should be impossible to not support invariant sections in any later version of the GFDL... otherwise it is a violation of the wish of any author who made use of such sections.

However, the FSF is clearly addressing the concerns of some people by the creation of the SFDL... The FSF is moving to address the concerns of the Debian people. The details regarding the "acknowledgments" and "dedications" can definitely be further revised.

This is a move in the right direction.

First impressions

Posted Sep 27, 2006 4:20 UTC (Wed) by piman (guest, #8957) [Link] (2 responses)

The largest user of invariant sections is the FSF themselves. A step in the right direction would be relicensing the manuals the FSF has permission to; this is just further license balkanization.

First impressions

Posted Sep 27, 2006 16:02 UTC (Wed) by atai (subscriber, #10977) [Link] (1 responses)

That is a separate thing from drafting the next version of the FDL.

First impressions

Posted Sep 27, 2006 16:24 UTC (Wed) by piman (guest, #8957) [Link]

But substantially easier, and more pressing to Debian's concerns.

First draft of the GNU Free Documentation License v2

Posted Sep 27, 2006 12:23 UTC (Wed) by jg (guest, #17537) [Link] (3 responses)

Invariant sections are even more pernicious than most realize, due to potentially catastrophic interactions with trademark law. The result of abuse of invariant sections including trademarks could make documentation impossible to fork or use in other contexts (you can't use other people's trademarks without permission in many contexts), which strikes at truly basic freedoms.

I've always thought that Debian was exactly correct on this one, even though I don't think they were particularly aware of those interactions.

First draft of the GNU Free Documentation License v2

Posted Sep 27, 2006 16:26 UTC (Wed) by piman (guest, #8957) [Link] (2 responses)

There's an even more subtle interaction whereby you cannot move free sections between books on different subjects if they have invariant sections attached. E.g. you could excerpt parts of the GCC manual for a book on the history of free software or a history of compilers, because then the "secondary" material found in the invariant sections is the primary subject of the work.

First draft of the GNU Free Documentation License v2

Posted Sep 27, 2006 16:37 UTC (Wed) by piman (guest, #8957) [Link]

> E.g. you could

Or rather, could *not*...

First draft of the GNU Free Documentation License v2

Posted Sep 27, 2006 17:24 UTC (Wed) by bfields (subscriber, #19510) [Link]

E.g. you could excerpt parts of the GCC manual for a book on the history of free software or a history of compilers, because then the "secondary" material found in the invariant sections is the primary subject of the work.

Well, that particular use may not require a license at all--ideally it should be fair use.

I like the SFDL

Posted Sep 27, 2006 20:55 UTC (Wed) by droundy (subscriber, #4559) [Link]

It's quite simple, very readable, and seems to address all the reasonable issues the FDL addressed, and at the same time to be DFSG-free. The requirement of preserving the awknowledgements seems quite reasonable, particularly as only the tone and content need be preserved. Overall, it seems quite flexible... now if only I wanted to write a book...