[okfn-discuss] GFDL updates, compatibility, and confusion
rufus.pollock at okfn.org
Mon May 19 15:16:22 BST 2008
On 19/05/08 00:41, Benj. Mako Hill wrote:
> <quote who="jo at frot.org" date="Wed, May 14, 2008 at 03:27:37AM -0700">
>> Understood. Looking at the original writing on "free documentation"
>> principles, of which the GFDL is an example, it seems quit clear that
>> GFDL was designed specifically for *technical documentation of software*.
>> ( http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-doc.html )
> I would go even farther. I would say that it was designed for the
> manual for GNU software as published by the Free Software Foundation!
>> However I don't see how GFDL 1.2 is considered "free" according to the
>> Free Cultural Works Definition ("the license must not limit the
>> freedom to distribute a modified version ... regardless of the intent and
>> purpose of such modifications.") but that is probably a conversation
>> for some other mailing list :)
> I think that the definition should probably specify that a work is only
> free if it contains no invariant sections. If it is (and most GFDL works
> including Wikipedia are) then it really is quite a lot more like BY-SA.
With the Open Knowledge Definition we haven't explicitly stated that
invariant sections are a violation in the definition itself (perhaps
this could go in the annotated version). However in the conformant
licenses section  it does explicitly state:
The GFDL is only considered conformant if you
* don't use invariant Sections or cover texts
* don't include an "Acknowledgements" or "Dedications" section
* amend the DRM restriction (section 2) to be less broad (for
example restricting to the requirement that the work is available
More information about the okfn-discuss