[okfn-discuss] GFDL updates, compatibility, and confusion

[Rufus Pollock]

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 [1] it does explicitly state:

<quote>
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 
without TPMs)
</quote>

~rufus