LWN: Comments on "First draft of the GNU Free Documentation License v2"

I like the SFDL

droundy — Wed, 27 Sep 2006 20:55:26 +0000

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...

First draft of the GNU Free Documentation License v2

bfields — Wed, 27 Sep 2006 17:24:31 +0000

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.

First draft of the GNU Free Documentation License v2

piman — Wed, 27 Sep 2006 16:37:12 +0000

> E.g. you could

Or rather, could *not*...

First draft of the GNU Free Documentation License v2

piman — Wed, 27 Sep 2006 16:26:50 +0000

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 impressions

piman — Wed, 27 Sep 2006 16:24:35 +0000

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

First impressions

atai — Wed, 27 Sep 2006 16:02:39 +0000

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

First draft of the GNU Free Documentation License v2

jg — Wed, 27 Sep 2006 12:23:10 +0000

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 impressions

piman — Wed, 27 Sep 2006 04:20:27 +0000

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

atai — Tue, 26 Sep 2006 19:06:24 +0000

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

corbet — Tue, 26 Sep 2006 18:46:32 +0000

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.