LWN: Comments on "A new GPLv3 timetable"

A new GPLv3 timetable

flewellyn — Wed, 28 Mar 2007 21:28:37 +0000

Hm, I wasn't aware of the issues with the DRM section, or with the transparent and opaque sections. I only ever heard about the objections to invariant sections, front covers, and back covers.

That said, I think the new draft SFDL is a better idea, since it doesn't include invariants, front covers, or back covers. I still think FSF could distribute the Manifesto and the license texts as separate, aggregated works.

What is the Debian situation

cortana — Wed, 28 Mar 2007 11:03:04 +0000

Well, that's not quite true. Some of it they simply dropped on the floor. :(

Which free license for textbooks?

sanjoy — Wed, 28 Mar 2007 10:23:41 +0000

why does the GPLv2 require you to include an offer for machine readable physical media? why wouldn't a printed URL in the back of the book be just as good?

Here is Section 3 of the GPLv2:

You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:

Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
[an option valid only for "occasional, noncommercial" distribution]

If you as the distributor take option 3(a), then you include a CDROM or floppy in the back of the book. If you take option 3(b), then you need to include a written offer to provide the source on a "medium customarily used for software interchange." My understanding is that "medium" in this context means a physical medium such as a CDROM. Of course, you can also just give a URL as well, and hopefully everyone will take it from there instead of asking you for a CDROM. I ran into RMS on a street in Cambridge a few months ago and asked him about the GPL vs the GFDL for textbooks, and he confirmed the above understanding of source distribution. Here is the official FSF explanation.

Of course, what matters in court is the intention of the licensor rather than the explanation from the FSF (if the licensor is not the FSF). But most often, the licensor is a also licensee of upstream GPL code, in which case it's the intention of the original licensor(s) that matter.

One of the Ubuntu developers told me Ubuntu's experience with this clause. They have shipped millons of CDROMs, which also tell people where online to get the source. Despite the huge number shipped, Ubuntu has got only a handful (maybe two or three but I forget the exact number) of requests for a physical medium. It is one reason that the FSF agreed to the Internet-distribution option in the GPLv3 draft.

after all that works for people shipping binaries of GPL software in physical devices (be it Tivo or Linksys or anyone else)

The printed URL is useful, but they also need to include a written offer for people to get a physical medium. I think the requirement is overly strict today, and I hope that the final GPLv3 contains a more modern option.

Which free license for textbooks?

dlang — Wed, 28 Mar 2007 03:25:10 +0000

why does the GPLv2 require you to include an offer for machine readable physical media? why wouldn't a printed URL in the back of the book be just as good?

after all that works for people shipping binaries of GPL software in physical devices (be it Tivo or Linksys or anyone else)

David Lang

A new GPLv3 timetable

njs — Wed, 28 Mar 2007 02:01:43 +0000

>They're leery of it because of the "front-cover text", "back-cover text", and "invariant section" clauses.

That's not entirely complete... a good bit of reading for those that are interested is the summary prepared by debian-legal back during the original debate:
http://people.debian.org/~srivasta/Position_Statement.xhtml

Invariant sections are the most gratuitous way that the GFDL is DFSG-non-free, but a lot of reasonable people believe that it still isn't DFSG-free even when there are no invariant sections. This isn't the official position of the Debian project -- they decided that only invariant sections are a problem -- but that's not because the debian-legal denizens reached this as consensus, but rather that the project as a whole held a popular vote and the majority declared that it was free by fiat. I'm not entirely impressed by this. I find the arguments on that web page compelling, and am anyway more inclined to trust the experts than the popular opinion; if I were a debian developer I would have voted for the GFDL being simply non-free.

Also, even if you do consider the GFDL free, there are a giant list of ways that the GFDL is just obnoxious in practice. (One major one is that it is itself GPL incompatible.) That doesn't matter from a distribution's point of view, but it's important to keep in mind if you are producing a new work and thus have to choose a license. These days I just use GPL for documentation; at least that way I know I can copy and paste between it and the code... (I've not been following the Creative Commons license revisions, does anyone know how acceptable they are these days?) Personally I would strongly recommend against anyone choosing to use the GFDL. At the very least, you should think about it very carefully; I have a huge amount of respect and trust for the FSF, but I think they really screwed this one up.

A similar and thoughtful discussion of these issues that influenced me: http://zwol.livejournal.com/13793.html

What is the Debian situation

vmole — Tue, 27 Mar 2007 21:43:03 +0000

I will be pleasantly surprised if this turns out to be the case.

Pure speculation: RMS wanted a license for "his" (FSF) documents that would prevent people from removing the propaganda[1] and (re-)publishing only the technical bits, and doesn't care if anyone else uses it. Thus the lack of response to other's concerns. OTOH, he wants/needs the GPL3 to be widely adopted, and thus is being more flexible.

[1] FWIW, I'm pretty much in agreement with his argumements. I'd have picked a less loaded term than "propaganda" if I could come up with one.

What is the Debian situation

coriordan — Tue, 27 Mar 2007 21:19:47 +0000

Why bother? Well, people who complained about FSF's responsiveness in the GFDL process have praised their responsiveness in the GPLv3 process, so maybe something changed.

Which free license for textbooks?

sanjoy — Tue, 27 Mar 2007 20:47:58 +0000

Even for documents, I prefer the GPL to the GFDL. The GPL is well understood, is the most widely used free license, and it doesn't allow invariant sections or front- or back-cover texts.

Problem using the GPLv2 for documents

The only problem with using the GPL is that, as of version 2, it is not as convenient for distributing the 'executable' when the executable is a printed book. Under the GPLv2, you'd have to include a written offer to provide machine-readable source on a physical medium (e.g. CDROM); whereas it would be more convenient to put the source on the internet and just include the URL. The second GPLv3 draft, in section 6(b1), allows this option, as does the GFDL. I hope the new GPL draft, due out tomorrow, retains this option!

GFDL without invariant sections and cover texts?

You could release a textbook under the GFDL and not use invariant sections or cover texts. However, someone downstream could make useful changes wrapping them in cover texts or invariant sections. To use the downstream changes, you'd have to incorporate their invariant section or cover texts. So the downstream users can make islands of incompatability. With the GPL, it's not possible for others to make these islands.

CC ShareAlike?

I don't like using the CC licenses for substantial documents, e.g. textbooks, because the license do not mention source code. So someone could take your book.tex files, improve it, and share the improved PDF, but you'd have to waste effort finding and reverse-engineering the changes back into the .tex file. The ShareAlike provision would allow you to do that, but it's easier if the downstream distributor has to provide his or her source code, just as you did.

So, here's hoping that GPLv3 does the right thing and keeps the proposed section 6(b1).

What is the Debian situation

vmole — Tue, 27 Mar 2007 19:02:50 +0000

Why bother? During the comment period for the original GFDL, all the current objections (e.g. invariant texts, covers, and some subtle and possibly obscure issues about encrtypted copies) were raised, detailed, and discussed with RMS and the FSF. The GFDL was released more-or-less unchanged. Since then, a group of Debian people have tried to discuss this with them, and periodically claim that they will have something to report "Real Soon Now", but soon never seems to arrive.

Clearly, RMS and the FSF find the objections irrelevant to their goals. That's fine, BTW: they have made a license that meets their goals. If those goals agree with yours, the use the GFDL. But what I disapprove of is the use of "Free" in the license title; it is NOT equivalent to the meaning of "Free" as used in the GPL, because there things you can do with GPL code that you cannot do with GFDL documents. Having two meanings for "free" is bad enough, adding a third doesn't help anything.

A new GPLv3 timetable

k8to — Tue, 27 Mar 2007 18:42:51 +0000

Personally I do not see why it is obviously desirable to mark the GNU Manifesto unchangable. I can copy the text today and deface it without agreeing to any portion of the GFDL under fair use for parody or whatnot. Save defacement, what changes are going to occur to the text? Removal is about the only other likely (in fact MORE likely) change. The only reason that it makes sense to make the GNU manifesto invariant and thus unremovable, is if the FSF believes that the manifesto is text that users do not want to hear. This very act creates an atmosphere of assumed desired rejection and I think is contrary to their goals.

As for invariant covers, this essentially attempts to prevent the reuse of GNU documentation in other documents, mostly likely with an eye to commercial physical-book publications. Again, I cannot see that it is desirable to discourage reuse of the GNU documentation, as it would cause the documentation to be more broadly disseminated which would encourage adoption of the GNU tools. The downside is a mere protection of an established GNU revenue stream: the printed copies of GNU manuals. Personally I am doubtful that many of the GNU manuals are purchased solely for utility reasons in a manner that would be so easily interrupted. But if this is the case, cannot the FSF seek to diversify their revenue sources, so that the documentation they create can eventually be as Free as the software it is designed to accompany?

A new GPLv3 timetable

k8to — Tue, 27 Mar 2007 18:32:36 +0000

To reiterate, GFDL documents with invariant sections are considered non-free, by Debian and by me, as they do not meet the Debian Free Software Guidelines. As a result, things such as the man pages for gcc are *not* in Debian, because they are unfree. They are stored in the non-free section of Debian, which means they are installable by users who explicitly choose to acquire the non-free lists of packages, and who explicitly choose to install the gcc documentation which is not pulled in by the gcc software. Similar situations are repeated for most GNU tools.

As an aside, one of the invariant sections is the GFDL text itself, and some accompanying text. This means that this huge slab of irrelevant text must be either included in all man pages, greatly reducing their usability, or must be installed (as the license allows) as a seperate gfdl manpage, which is referenced. Having manpages which are not actually manuals for anything offends my sysadmin sensibilities, so I've actually gone so far as to create a fake package which replaces these manuals with no files at all, thus circumventing this silly requirement. I may be in violation of the GFDL, but perhaps remain safe so long as I do not distribute my installation.

A new GPLv3 timetable

error27 — Tue, 27 Mar 2007 16:09:01 +0000

Invariant sections aren't bad in themselves. It's just that the language of the GFDL is bad and imprecise. You could have a GFDL doc that was entirely invariant.

What is the Debian situation

coriordan — Tue, 27 Mar 2007 15:13:17 +0000

Aha. I found that vote, but I thought it was Etch that they delayed implementation for - it was actually Sarge. Thanks for the clarification. I stand corrected.

Well, as I said, anyone who doesn't like any part of GFDL should say it where it matters, while it matters as it does now.

What is the Debian situation

madscientist — Tue, 27 Mar 2007 14:40:29 +0000

I should be clear: they've moved all the GFDL docs that have invariant sections and/or front/back cover texts into non-free. That includes all the FSF software documentation, since the FSF requires some cover texts for all their documents.

What is the Debian situation

madscientist — Tue, 27 Mar 2007 14:39:19 +0000

Debian's GR and results are here (this is the current position IIRC): http://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_001

You can find a good (isn't that redundant? :)) LWN article on it from a year ago or so here: http://lwn.net/Articles/167098/

Note that as of Debian Etch (the next release), all the GFDL documentation has been moved out of Debian proper, into the "non-free" section, and they did a lot of work to make it so... it's absolutely not true that, as the previous poster implied, this is "not a huge issue" for Debian. They have put their money on the table, so to speak.

A new GPLv3 timetable

flewellyn — Tue, 27 Mar 2007 14:24:07 +0000

They're leery of it because of the "front-cover text", "back-cover text", and "invariant section" clauses.

I can kinda see both sides of the issue here. On the one hand, FSF put those in because they want the ability to distribute, say, the GNU Manifesto, or the book's license, with a GFDL-covered book. Obviously, they don't want those to be changeable, so they would mark them as "invariant". Similar with the front and back-cover texts, which are apparently meant for the title and author or something similar.

On the other hand, while FSF may well restrict themselves to only marking those particular things invariant, the license is not sufficiently clear on what can and can't be so marked. There's concern that GFDL manuals or books could have important parts marked "invariant", when those parts should be changeable.

I think FSF made a bad decision when they put in the front-cover, back-cover, and invariant section clauses. I understand their reasoning, but I think those clauses are the wrong way to handle the problem. What I would do is simply remove those clauses, and then distribute parts of the book that are meant to be "invariant" under a different license altogether, and prominently mark those parts of the book (which are separate anyway) as being "not under the GFDL". Generally the FSF puts the license and the manifesto in appendices, in completely separate parts of the book from the actual manual text.

I see nothing wrong with doing so, declaring that those parts are "copyrighted but allowing unlimited distribution" (which text is already found in the licenses and the Manifesto), provided that the text of these "invariant" sections is kept strictly separate from the rest of the book. Conceivably this could be justified as "mere aggregation", in the GPL's sense.

What is the Debian situation

coriordan — Tue, 27 Mar 2007 14:21:04 +0000

I can't find Debian's current position on GFDL on their website.

Last I remembered, they decided that GFDL'd docs without invariant sections are free, but those with invariant sections are not free. Then there was another vote, and did they decide to also keep GFDL'd docs that have invariant sections until they get the next release out?

A new GPLv3 timetable

coriordan — Tue, 27 Mar 2007 14:14:54 +0000

If anyone has an issue with the GFDL, now is the time to participate in the consultation process: GFDL and GSFDL drafts and comment systems.

Debian are indeed the loudest critics of the GFDL, but IIRC they still distribute all the GFDL'd manuals that every other distro does, so it's clearly not a huge issue for them.

I'm not defending the GFDL, I'm against Invariant Sections, but "many" and "leery" have to be put in perspective.

A new GPLv3 timetable

rknop — Tue, 27 Mar 2007 13:48:43 +0000

Actually -- isn't the GFDL one of those things that many in the Free Software community are leery of? (E.g. the Debian project.)

Perhaps the CC ShareAlike license is most appropriate for textbooks....

A new GPLv3 timetable

oska — Tue, 27 Mar 2007 11:21:59 +0000

I believe markcox's comment was meant humourously.

Strict accuracy is not necessary in humour, but yes, the GFDL is the most appropriate license for textbooks. Whether it is the most appropriate license for fiction is another matter.

A new GPLv3 timetable

k8to — Tue, 27 Mar 2007 07:38:21 +0000

I wasn't aware that Harry Potter was a field of study ;-)

A new GPLv3 timetable

proski — Tue, 27 Mar 2007 02:49:12 +0000

But how suitable is GPLv3 for textbooks? Isn't GFDL more suitable for that purpose?

A new GPLv3 timetable

markcox — Tue, 27 Mar 2007 00:06:57 +0000

Just in time for the next harry potter to be released under the gplv3.

A new GPLv3 timetable

kwink81 — Mon, 26 Mar 2007 22:47:58 +0000

Thank goodness. I was beginning to worry that the GPLv3 draft committe was bound and gagged in someone's basement.

It will be fun to see what they came up with.