5 ms·

”[...] The issues for writings are not necessarily the same as those for software. For example, I don't think you or I are obliged to give permission to modify

”[...] The issues for writings are not necessarily the same as those for software. For example, I don't think you or I are obliged to give permission to modify articles like this one, which describe our actions and our views. But there is a particular reason why the freedom to modify is crucial for documentation for free software. When people exercise their right to modify the software, and add or change its features, if they are conscientious they will change the manual too—so they can provide accurate and usable documentation with the modified program. A manual which forbids programmers from being conscientious and finishing the job, or more precisely requires them to write a new manual from scratch if they change the program, does not fill our community's needs. While a blanket prohibition on modification is unacceptable, some kinds of limits on the method of modification pose no problem. For example, requirements to preserve the original author's copyright notice, the distribution terms, or the list of authors, are OK. It is also no problem to require modified versions to include notice that they were modified, even to have entire sections that may not be deleted or changed, as long as these sections deal with nontechnical topics.[...]”

kome 6y ago
very reasonable.
- segfaultbuserr 6y ago
  Unfortunately, although the intentions are good, the additional restrictions imposed by GFDL creates a lot of compatibility problems in practice. Nowadays, the use of GFDL is no longer recommended by default. Unless you specifically need the unique features in GFDL, the best practice is to use Creative Commons 4.0, either CC BY or CC BY-SA (if you want stronger copyleft than CC BY-SA, even the use of GPL is better in terms of compatibility). The most prominent problem is the invariant sections and cover texts. It allows certain sections in a work to be unchangeable, such as the front-cover and back-cover texts, so that the information in the original publication won't be distorted. While it's very reasonable for a standalone book, but it would be a violation of basic expetation of free software if the documentation is to be treated as a subsection of the software itself. Thus, Debian packages software documentation separately, and classifies all docs with invariant sections as "non-free software". Also, the most common practice to publish documents under GFDL is to say "it's published under GFDL [version], with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts" to avoid the issue. But if you already do this, you don't really need GFDL. The second related problem is that the GFDL is an independent license, so it's incompatible with GPL in both directions. A GPDL manual cannot use GPL code, and a GPL program cannot use code from the GFDL manual. GPL code to a GFDL documentation is effectively proprietary, the only way to use them is invoke the rights of fair use, which only allows a very limited portion of code to be used. Another possible workaround is to dual-license all code in a GFDL manual. Even Eben Moglen, lead lawyer of the FSF, believes it's problematic. He says GFDL to him is like gravity to quantum mechanics. > [In GPLv3] By expressing LGPL as just an additional permission on top of GPL we simplify our licensing landscape drastically. It's like for physics getting rid of a force, right? We just unified electro-weak, ok? The grand unified field theory still escapes us until the document licences too are just additional permissions on top of GPL. I don't know how we'll ever get there, that's gravity, it's really hard. And the third problem is a practical one, the requirement of all works, even for those without Invariant Sections and Cover Texts, to include a full copy of the GFDL license. Again, while it's very reasonable for a standalone book, but it would be unsuitable for other types of creative works, such as short reference materials, maps, tour guide, or photos. The classic example is Wikipedia, if a reader ever wants to copy a section of the article or a single photograph, the inclusion of the full text of GFDL is legality required. It's why Wikipedia soon migrated to Creative Commons + GFDL to avoid this problem.
  - crazypython 6y ago
    > It allows certain sections in a work to be unchangeable, such as the front-cover and back-cover texts, so that the information in the original publication won't be distorted. That way, the author of the manual can receive credit. And also the author can insert whatever sponsorships, dedications, and website URLs in there. And this is key, there are a lot of scam websites that just <iframe> existing websites and put ads outside the iframe. CC-BY-SA is a weak copyleft– akin to LGPL while GFDL is akin to GPL.
  - ssivark 6y ago
    Thanks for a lucid explanation of the underlying mess. I now have a much better perspective. PS: I particularly enjoyed the unification/gravity analogy btw :-D >.<
brutusborn 6y ago
I think it would be good if there was a method to modify other people's writing. Imagine a news article where people can add references, statistics or prose to supplement the original. You could attribute each change to an author. I guess it is possible now if author's provided a licence for a work?

kome 6y ago

very reasonable.

segfaultbuserr 6y ago
Unfortunately, although the intentions are good, the additional restrictions imposed by GFDL creates a lot of compatibility problems in practice. Nowadays, the use of GFDL is no longer recommended by default. Unless you specifically need the unique features in GFDL, the best practice is to use Creative Commons 4.0, either CC BY or CC BY-SA (if you want stronger copyleft than CC BY-SA, even the use of GPL is better in terms of compatibility). The most prominent problem is the invariant sections and cover texts. It allows certain sections in a work to be unchangeable, such as the front-cover and back-cover texts, so that the information in the original publication won't be distorted. While it's very reasonable for a standalone book, but it would be a violation of basic expetation of free software if the documentation is to be treated as a subsection of the software itself. Thus, Debian packages software documentation separately, and classifies all docs with invariant sections as "non-free software". Also, the most common practice to publish documents under GFDL is to say "it's published under GFDL [version], with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts" to avoid the issue. But if you already do this, you don't really need GFDL. The second related problem is that the GFDL is an independent license, so it's incompatible with GPL in both directions. A GPDL manual cannot use GPL code, and a GPL program cannot use code from the GFDL manual. GPL code to a GFDL documentation is effectively proprietary, the only way to use them is invoke the rights of fair use, which only allows a very limited portion of code to be used. Another possible workaround is to dual-license all code in a GFDL manual. Even Eben Moglen, lead lawyer of the FSF, believes it's problematic. He says GFDL to him is like gravity to quantum mechanics. > [In GPLv3] By expressing LGPL as just an additional permission on top of GPL we simplify our licensing landscape drastically. It's like for physics getting rid of a force, right? We just unified electro-weak, ok? The grand unified field theory still escapes us until the document licences too are just additional permissions on top of GPL. I don't know how we'll ever get there, that's gravity, it's really hard. And the third problem is a practical one, the requirement of all works, even for those without Invariant Sections and Cover Texts, to include a full copy of the GFDL license. Again, while it's very reasonable for a standalone book, but it would be unsuitable for other types of creative works, such as short reference materials, maps, tour guide, or photos. The classic example is Wikipedia, if a reader ever wants to copy a section of the article or a single photograph, the inclusion of the full text of GFDL is legality required. It's why Wikipedia soon migrated to Creative Commons + GFDL to avoid this problem.
- crazypython 6y ago
  > It allows certain sections in a work to be unchangeable, such as the front-cover and back-cover texts, so that the information in the original publication won't be distorted. That way, the author of the manual can receive credit. And also the author can insert whatever sponsorships, dedications, and website URLs in there. And this is key, there are a lot of scam websites that just <iframe> existing websites and put ads outside the iframe. CC-BY-SA is a weak copyleft– akin to LGPL while GFDL is akin to GPL.
- ssivark 6y ago
  Thanks for a lucid explanation of the underlying mess. I now have a much better perspective. PS: I particularly enjoyed the unification/gravity analogy btw :-D >.<

brutusborn 6y ago

I think it would be good if there was a method to modify other people's writing. Imagine a news article where people can add references, statistics or prose to supplement the original. You could attribute each change to an author. I guess it is possible now if author's provided a licence for a work?