General Resolution: Why the GNU Free Doc

General Resolution: Why the GNU Free Documentation License is not suitable for Debian main
Skip Quicknav
Blog
Micronews
Planet
Wiki
Debian Voting Information
2006
General Resolution: Why the GNU Free Documentation License is not suitable for Debian main
Home Vote Page
How To
Submit a Proposal
Amend a Proposal
Follow a Proposal
Decided
Debian Project Leader Elections 2026
Debian Project Leader Elections 2025
Debian Project Leader Elections 2024
General Resolution: Statement about the EU Legislation "Cyber Resilience Act and Product Liability Directive"
Debian Project Leader Elections 2023
General Resolution: non-free firmware
Debian Project Leader Elections 2022
General Resolution: Voting secrecy
General Resolution: Change the resolution process
General Resolution: Statement regarding Richard Stallman's readmission to the FSF board
Debian Project Leader Elections 2021
Debian Project Leader Elections 2020
General Resolution: Init systems and systemd
Debian Project Leader Elections 2019
Debian Project Leader Elections 2018
Debian Project Leader Elections 2017
General Resolution: Declassifying debian-private
General Resolution: Replace "Chairman" with "Chair" throughout the Debian Constitution
General Resolution: Declassifying debian-private
Debian Project Leader Elections 2016
General Resolution: Update Standard Resolution Procedure
Debian Project Leader Elections 2015
General Resolution: Limiting the term of the technical committee members
General Resolution: init system coupling
General Resolution: code of conduct
Debian Project Leader Elections 2014
Debian Project Leader Elections 2013
General Resolution: Diversity statement
Debian Project Leader Elections 2012
Debian Project Leader Elections 2011
General Resolution: Debian project members
Debian Project Leader Elections 2010
Debian Project Leader Elections 2009
General Resolution: Lenny and resolving DFSG violations
General Resolution: Project membership procedures
Debian Project Leader Elections 2008
Constitutional amendment: reduce the length of DPL election process
General Resolution: Endorse the concept of Debian Maintainers
General Resolution: Altering package upload rules
Debian Project Leader Elections 2007
General Resolution: Handling source-less firmware in the Linux kernel
General Resolution: Re-affirm support to the Debian Project Leader
General Resolution: Recall the project leader
General Resolution: Position statement clarifying DFSG #2
Constitutional Amendment General Resolution: Handling assets for the project
Debian Project Leader Elections 2006
General Resolution: Why the GNU Free Documentation License is not suitable for Debian main
General Resolution: Declassification of debian-private list archives
Debian Project Leader Elections 2005
General Resolution: Sarge Release Schedule in view of GR 2004-003
General Resolution: Editorial amendments to the social contract
General Resolution: Status of the non-free section
Debian Project Leader Elections 2004
Constitutional Amendment: Disambiguation of Section 4.1.5
Constitutional Amendment: Condorcet/Clone Proof SSD Voting Method
Debian Project Leader Elections 2003
Debian Project Leader Elections 2002
Leader Elections 2001
Leader Elections 2000
Swap Logos
New Logo
Logo License
Leader Elections 1999
Constitution
Withdrawn
General Resolution: Interpretation of DFSG on Artificial Intelligence (AI) Models
General Resolution: tag2upload
General Resolution: Update Standard Resolution Procedure
General Resolution: Sponsorship requirements for General Resolutions
General Resolution: Force AMD64 architecture into Sarge
IRC as a Debian communication channel
Other
Superseded: Constitutional amendment: Smith/Condorcet vote tallying
Superseded: Constitutional amendment: alternate disambiguation of 4.1.5
Superseded: Constitutional amendment: disambiguation of 4.1.5
Superseded: Non-free Archive Removal
General Resolution: Why the GNU Free Documentation License is not suitable for Debian main
Time Line
Proposer
Seconds
Text
Amendment Proposer A
Amendment Seconds A
Amendment Text A
Amendment Proposer B
Amendment Seconds B
Amendment Text B
Quorum
Data and Statistics
Majority Requirement
Outcome
Time Line
Proposal and amendment
Sunday, 1
st
January, 2006
Thursday, 9
th
February, 2006
Discussion Period:
Friday, 10
th
February, 2006
Saturday, 25
th
February, 23:59:59 UTC, 2006
Voting Period
Sunday 26
th
February, 00:00:01 UTC, 2006
Sunday 12
th
March, 00:00:01 UTC, 2006
Proposer
Anthony Towns
ajt@debian.org
Seconds
Manoj Srivastava
srivasta@debian.org
Russ Allbery
rra@debian.org
Steve Langasek
vorlon@debian.org
Kalle Kivimaa
killer@debian.org
Roger Leigh
rleigh@debian.org
Text
Choice 1.
The actual text of the GR is:
(0) Summary
Within the Debian community there has been a
significant amount of concern about the GNU Free
Documentation License (GFDL), and whether it is, in
fact, a
free
license. This document attempts to
explain why Debian's answer is
no
It should be noted that this does not imply any
hostility towards the Free Software Foundation, and
does not mean that GFDL documentation should not be
considered
free enough
by others, and Debian itself
will continue distributing GFDL documentation in its
non-free
section.
(1) What is the GFDL?
The GFDL is a license written by the Free Software
Foundation, who use it as a license for their own
documentation, and promote it to others. It is also
used as Wikipedia's license. To quote the GFDL's
Preamble:
The purpose of this License is to make a manual, textbook, or
other functional and useful document
free
in the sense of
freedom: to assure everyone the effective freedom to copy and
redistribute it, with or without modifying it, either
commercially or noncommercially. Secondarily, this License
preserves for the author and publisher a way to get credit for
their work, while not being considered responsible for
modifications made by others.
This License is a kind of
copyleft
, which means that
derivative works of the document must themselves be free in the
same sense. It complements the GNU General Public License, which
is a copyleft license designed for free software.
(2) How does it fail to meet Debian's standards for Free Software?
The GFDL conflicts with traditional requirements for free software in
a variety of ways, some of which are expanded upon below. As a copyleft
license, one of the consequences of this is that it is not possible to
include content from a document directly into free software under
the GFDL.
The major conflicts are:
(2.1) Invariant Sections
The most troublesome conflict concerns the class of invariant
sections that, once included, may not be modified or removed
from the documentation in future. Modifiability is, however, a
fundamental requirement of the DFSG, which states:
3. Derived Works
The license must allow modifications and derived works, and
must allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the
license of the original software.
Invariant sections create particular problems in reusing small
portions of the work (since any invariant section must be
included also, however large), and in making sure the
documentation remains accurate and relevant.
(2.2) Transparent Copies
The second conflict is related to the GFDL's requirements for
transparent copies
of documentation (that is, a copy of the
documentation in a form suitable for editing). In particular,
Section 3 of the GFDL requires that a transparent copy of the
documentation be included with every opaque copy distributed, or
that a transparent copy is made available for a year after the
opaque copies are no longer being distributed.
For free software works, Debian expects that simply providing
the source (or transparent copy) alongside derivative works will
be sufficient, but this does not satisfy either clause of the
GFDL's requirements.
(2.3) Digital Rights Management
The third conflict with the GFDL arises from the measures in
Section 2 that attempt to overcome Digital Rights Management
(DRM) technologies. In particular, the GFDL states that
You
may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the
reading or further copying of the copies you make or
distribute
. This inhibits freedom in three ways: it limits
use of the documentation as well as distribution, by covering
all copies made, as well as copies distributed; it rules out
distributing copies on DRM-protected media, even if done in such
a way as to give users full access to a transparent copy of the
work; and, as written, it also potentially disallows encrypting
the documentation, or even storing it on a filesystem that
supports permissions.
(3) Why does documentation need to be Free Software?
There are a number of obvious differences between programs and
documentation that often inspire people to ask
why not simply
have different standards for the two?
For example, books are
often written by individuals, while programs are written by
teams, so proper credit for a book might be more important than
proper credit for a program.
On the other hand, free software is often written by a single
person, and free software documentation is often written by a
larger group of contributors. And the line between what is
documentation and what is a program is not always so clear
either, as content from one is often needed in the other (to
provide online help, to provide screenshots or interactive
tutorials, to provide a more detailed explanation by quoting
some of the source code). Similarly, while not all programs
demonstrate creativity or could be considered
works of
art
, some can, and trying to determine which is the case
for all the software in Debian would be a distraction from our
goals.
In practice, then, documentation simply isn't different enough
to warrant different standards: we still wish to provide source
code in the same manner as for programs, we still wish to be
able to modify and reuse documentation in other documentation
and programs as conveniently as possible, and we wish to be able
to provide our users with exactly the documentation they want,
without extraneous materials.
(4) How can this be fixed?
What, then, can documentation authors and others do about this?
An easy first step is to not include the
optional invariant sections in your
documentation, since they are not required by
the license, but are simply an option open to
authors.
Unfortunately this alone is not enough, as other clauses of the
GFDL render all GFDL documentation non-free. As a consequence,
other licenses should be investigated; generally it is probably
simplest to choose either the GNU General Public License (for a
copyleft license) or the BSD or MIT licenses (for a non-copyleft
license).
As most GFDL documentation is made available under
the terms
of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any
later version published by the Free Software Foundation
the Free Software Foundation is able to remedy these problems by
changing the license. The problems discussed above require
relatively minor changes to the GFDL — allowing invariant
sections to be removed, allowing transparent copies to be made
available concurrently, and moderating the restrictions on
technical measures. Unfortunately, while members of the Debian
Project have been in contact with the FSF about these concerns
for the past four years, these negotiations have not come to any
conclusion to date.
Amendment Proposer A
Adeodato Simó
adeodato@debian.org
Amendment Seconds A
Anthony Towns
ajt@debian.org
Osamu Aoki
osamu@debian.org
Christopher Martin
chrsmrtn@debian.org
Wesley J. Landaker
wjl@debian.org
Wouter Verhelst
wouter@debian.org
Hamish Moffatt
hamish@debian.org
Pierre Habouzit
madcoder@debian.org
Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt
he@debian.org
Anibal Monsalve Salazar
anibal@debian.org
Isaac Clerencia
isaac@debian.org
Moritz Muehlenhoff
jmm@debian.org
Zephaniah E. Hull
warp@debian.org
Christian Perrier
bubulle@debian.org
Martin Michlmayr
tbm@debian.org
Christoph Berg
myon@debian.org
Amendment Text A
Choice 2.
The actual text of the amendment is:
This is the position of the Debian Project about the GNU Free
Documentation License as published by the Free Software
Foundation:
We consider that the GNU Free Documentation License version
1.2 conflicts with traditional requirements for free
software, since it allows for non-removable,
non-modifiable parts to be present in documents
licensed under it. Such parts are commonly referred
to as
invariant sections
, and are described in
Section 4 of the GFDL.
As modifiability is a fundamental requirement of
the Debian Free Software Guidelines, this
restriction is not acceptable for us, and we cannot
accept in our distribution works that include such
unmodifiable content.
At the same time, we also consider that works
licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License
that include no invariant sections do fully meet
the requirements of the Debian Free Software
Guidelines.
This means that works that don't include any
Invariant Sections, Cover Texts, Acknowledgements,
and Dedications (or that do, but permission to
remove them is explicitly granted), are suitable
for the main component of our distribution.
Despite the above, GFDL'd documentation is still
not free of trouble, even for works with no
invariant sections: as an example, it is
incompatible with the major free software licenses,
which means that GFDL'd text can't be incorporated
into free programs.
For this reason, we encourage documentation authors
to license their works (or dual-license, together
with the GFDL) under the same terms as the software
they refer to, or any of the traditional free
software licenses like the GPL or the BSD
license.
Amendment Proposer B
Anton Zinoviev
zinoviev@debian.org
Amendment Seconds B
Raphael Hertzog
hertzog@debian.org
Xavier Roche
xavier@debian.org
Wesley J. Landaker
wjl@debian.org
Romain Francoise
rfrancoise@debian.org
Moritz Muehlenhoff
jmm@debian.org
Craig Sanders
cas@debian.org
Amendment Text B
Choice 3.
The actual text of the amendment is:
GNU Free Documentation License protects the freedom,
it is compatible with Debian Free Software Guidelines
0: Summary
This is the position of Debian Project about the GNU Free
Documentation License as published by the Free Software Foundation:
We consider that works licensed under GNU Free
Documentation License version 1.2 do fully
comply both with the requirements and the
spirit of Debian Free Software Guidelines.
Within Debian community there has been a
significant amount of uncertainty about the GNU
Free Documentation License (GFDL), and whether
it is, in fact, a
free
license. This
document attempts to explain why Debian's answer
is
yes
1: What is the GFDL?
The GFDL is a license written by the Free Software
Foundation, who use it as a license for their own
documentation, and promote it to others. It is also
used as Wikipedia's license. To quote the GFDL's
Preamble:
The purpose of this License is to make a manual, textbook, or
other functional and useful document
free
in the sense of
freedom: to assure everyone the effective freedom to copy and
redistribute it, with or without modifying it, either
commercially or noncommercially. Secondarily, this License
preserves for the author and publisher a way to get credit for
their work, while not being considered responsible for
modifications made by others.
This License is a kind of
copyleft
, which means that
derivative works of the document must themselves be free in the
same sense. It complements the GNU General Public License, which
is a copyleft license designed for free software.
(2) The Invariant Sections — Main Objection
Against GFDL
One of the most widespread
objections against GFDL is that GFDL permits works
covered under it to include certain sections,
designated as
invariant
. The text inside such
sections can not be changed or removed from the
work in future.
GFDL places considerable constraints on the
purpose of texts that can be included in an
invariant section. According to GFDL all
invariant sections must be also
secondary
sections
, i.e. they meet the following
definition
Secondary Section
is a named
appendix or a front-matter section of the
Document that deals exclusively with the
relationship of the publishers or authors
of the Document to the Document's overall
subject (or to related matters) and
contains nothing that could fall directly
within that overall subject. [...] The
relationship could be a matter of
historical connection with the subject or
with related matters, or of legal,
commercial, philosophical, ethical or
political position regarding them.
Consequently the secondary sections (and in
particular the invariant sections) are allowed
to include only personal position of the
authors or the publishers to some subject. It
is useless and unethical to modify somebody
else's personal position; in some cases this
is even illegal. For such texts Richard
Stallman (the founder of the Free Software
Movement and the GNU project and author of
GFDL) says [1]:
The whole point of those works is that they
tell you what somebody thinks or what
somebody saw or what somebody believes. To
modify them is to misrepresent the authors;
so modifying these works is not a socially
useful activity. And so verbatim copying is
the only thing that people really need to be
allowed to do.
This feature of GFDL can be opposed to the
following requirement of Debian Free Software
Guidelines:
3. Derived Works
The license must allow modifications and
derived works, and must allow them to be
distributed under the same terms as the
license of the original software.
It is naive to think that in order to fulfil
this requirement of DFSG the free licenses have to
permit arbitrary modifications. There are several
licenses that Debian has always acknowledged as
free that impose some limitations on the permitted
modifications. For example the GNU General Public
License contains the following clause:
If the modified program normally reads
commands interactively when run, you must
cause it, when started running for such
interactive use in the most ordinary way, to
print or display an announcement including an
appropriate copyright notice and a notice that
there is no warranty (or else, saying that you
provide a warranty) and that users may
redistribute the program under these
conditions, and telling the user how to view a
copy of this License.
The licenses that contain the so called
advertising clause
give us another example:
All advertising materials mentioning
features or use of this software must
display the following acknowledgement:
This product includes software developed
by ...
Consequently when judging whether some license
is free or not, one has to take into account what
kind of restrictions are imposed and how these
restrictions fit to the Social Contract of Debian:
4. Our priorities are our users and free software
We will be guided by the needs of our users
and the free software community. We will
place their interests first in our
priorities.
Currently GFDL is a license acknowledged as
free by the great mass of the members of the
free software community and as a result it is
used for the documentation of great part of
the currently available free programs. If
Debian decided that GFDL is not free, this
would mean that Debian attempted to impose on
the free software community alternative
meaning of
free software
, effectively
violating its Social Contract with the free
software community.
We should be able to improve the free
software and to adapt it to certain needs and
this stays behind the requirement of DFSG for
modifiability. GFDL allows everybody who
disagrees with a personal position expressed
in an invariant section to add their own
secondary section and to describe their
objections or additions. This is a
reasonable method to improve the available
secondary sections, a method that does not
lead to misrepresenting the authors opinion
or to censorship.
(3) Transparent copies
Another objections against GFDL is that
according to GFDL it is not enough to just put
a transparent copy of a document alongside
with the opaque version when you are
distributing it (which is all that you need to
do for sources under the GPL, for
example). Instead, the GFDL insists that you
must somehow include a machine-readable
Transparent copy (i.e., not allow the opaque
form to be downloaded without the transparent
form) or keep the transparent form available
for download at a publicly accessible location
for one year after the last distribution of
the opaque form.
The following is what the license says (the
capitalisations are not from the original
license):
You must either include a machine-readable
Transparent copy ALONG with each Opaque
copy, or state IN OR WITH each Opaque copy a
computer-network location from which the
general network-using public has access to
download using public-standard network
protocols a complete Transparent copy of the
Document, free of added material.
Consequently the license requires distribution
of the transparent form ALONG with each opaque
copy but not IN OR WITH each opaque copy. It
is a fact confirmed by Richard Stallman, author
of GFDL, and testified by the common practice,
that as long as you make the source and
binaries available so that the users can see
what's available and take what they want, you
have done what is required of you. It is up to
the user whether to download the transparent
form.
If the transparent copy is not distributed
along with the opaque copy then one must take
reasonably prudent steps to ensure that the
Transparent copy will remain accessible from
Internet at a stated location until at least
one year. In these circumstances the
requirement of GPL appears to be even more
severe — a written offer, valid for at least
three years, to give any third party a
complete machine-readable copy of the
corresponding source code.
(4) Digital Rights Management
The third objection against GFDL arises from
the measures in Section 2 that attempt to
overcome Digital Rights Management (DRM)
technologies. According to some
interpretations of the license, it rules out
distributing copies on DRM-protected media,
even if done in such a way as to give users
full access to a transparent copy of the work;
and, as written, it also potentially disallows
encrypting the documentation, or even storing
it on a file system that supports permissions.
In fact, the license says only this:
You may not use technical measures to
obstruct or control the reading or further
copying of the copies you make or distribute
This clause disallows the distribution or
storage of copies on DRM-protected media only
if a result of that action will be that the
reading or further copying of the copies is
obstructed or controlled. It is not supposed
to refer the use of encryption or file access
control on your own copy.
Consequently the measures of the license
against the DRM technologies are only a way
to ensure that the users are able to exercise
the rights they should have according to the
license. Because of that, these measures
serve similar purpose to the measures taken
in the GNU General Public License against the
patents:
If a patent license would not permit
royalty-free redistribution of the Program
by all those who receive copies directly or
indirectly through you, then the only way
you could satisfy both it and this License
would be to refrain entirely from
distribution of the Program.
We do not think that this requirement of GPL
makes GPL covered programs non-free even
though it can potentially make a GPL-covered
program undistributable. Its purpose is
against misuse of patents. Similarly, we do
not think that GFDL covered documentation is
non-free because of the measures taken in the
license against misuse of DRM-protected
media.
Quorum
With
972 developers
we have:
Current Developer Count = 972
Q ( sqrt(#devel) / 2 ) = 15.5884572681199
K min(5, Q ) = 5
Quorum (3 x Q ) = 46.7653718043597
Option1 Reached quorum: 223 > 46.7653718043597
Option2 Reached quorum: 272 > 46.7653718043597
Option3 Reached quorum: 133 > 46.7653718043597
Data and Statistics
For this GR, as always
statistics
are being gathered about ballots received and
acknowledgements sent periodically during the voting
period. Additionally, the list of
voters
is available. Also,
the
tally sheet
may also be
viewed (Note that while the vote is in progress it is a dummy tally sheet).
Majority Requirement
Since amendment B would require modification of a
foundation document, namely, the
Social
Contract
, it requires a 3:1 majority to pass. DFSG
article 3 would need to be changed, or at least
clarified. As it reads, it states that licenses a work is
available under must allow modifications of the work.
Option1 passes Majority. 1.874 (223/119) > 1
Option2 passes Majority. 3.200 (272/85) > 1
Dropping Option3 because of Majority. 0.649 (133/205) <= 3
Outcome
The winner
Option 2
GFDL-licensed works without unmodifiable sections are free
In the graph above, any pink colored nodes imply that
the option did not pass majority, the Blue is the
winner. The Octagon is used for the options that did
not beat the default. In the following table,
tally[row x][col y] represents the votes that option x
received over option y. A
more
detailed explanation of the beat matrix
may help in
understanding the table. For understanding the Condorcet method, the
Wikipedia
entry
is fairly informative.
Option 1
GFDL-licensed works are unsuitable for main in all cases
Option 2
GFDL-licensed works without unmodifiable sections are free
Option 3
GFDL-licensed works are compatible with the DFSG [needs 3:1]
Option 4
Further discussion
The Beat Matrix
Option
Option 1
145
226
223
Option 2
211
266
272
Option 3
117
76
133
Option 4
119
85
205
Looking at row 2, column 1, GFDL-licensed works without unmodifiable sections are free
received 211 votes over GFDL-licensed works are unsuitable for main in all cases
Looking at row 1, column 2, GFDL-licensed works are unsuitable for main in all cases
received 145 votes over GFDL-licensed works without unmodifiable sections are free.
Pair-wise defeats
Option 2 defeats Option 1 by ( 211 - 145) = 66 votes.
Option 1 defeats Option 4 by ( 223 - 119) = 104 votes.
Option 2 defeats Option 4 by ( 272 - 85) = 187 votes.
The Schwartz Set contains
Option 2
GFDL-licensed works without unmodifiable sections are free
Debian uses the Condorcet method for votes.
Simplistically, plain Condorcets method
can be stated like so :
Consider all possible two-way races between candidates.
The Condorcet winner, if there is one, is the one
candidate who can beat each other candidate in a two-way
race with that candidate.
The problem is that in complex elections, there may well
be a circular relations ship in which A beats B, B beats C,
and C beats A. Most of the variations on Condorcet use
various means of resolving the tie. See
Cloneproof Schwartz Sequential Dropping
for details. Debian's variation is spelled out in the
the constitution
specifically, A.6.
Manoj Srivastava
Back to the
Debian Project homepage
This page is also available in the following languages:
How to set
the default document language
About
Social Contract
Code of Conduct
Free Software
Legal Info
Help Debian
Getting Debian
Network install
CD/USB ISO images
Pure Blends
Debian Packages
Developers' Corner
News
Project News
Events
Documentation
Release Info
Debian Wiki
Support
Debian International
Security Information
Bug reports
Mailing Lists
The Debian Blog
Debian Micronews
Debian Planet
See our
contact page
to get in touch. Web site source code is
available
Last Modified: Sat, Sep 5 21:41:23 UTC 2020