[pkg-kde-talk] Re: [kde-doc-english] Debian, KDE and the GFDL problem

[Isaac Clerencia]

Hi Lauri :)

On Saturday, 7 January 2006 13:39, Lauri Watts wrote:
> The FDL, with the above terms, is the only license currently in use in KDE,
> although there are some legacy documents licensed under the GPL.
>
> Before this goes any further, can you please show me where (and why) debian
> believes the GFDL *with no invariant sections and no front/back cover
> texts* is a non-free license?
http://people.debian.org/~srivasta/Position_Statement.xhtml

Quoting from there:
"The problems with the GFDL fall into three major categories, which are 
treated in detail below."

The DRM Restriction
-------------------
Section 2 (VERBATIM COPYING) of the GFDL goes beyond the traditional source 
requirement in copyleft licenses in an important way: according to the GFDL 
no copy may ever be subject to "technical measures to obstruct or control" 
reading and copying. This means that: 
 * It is not limited to the act of distribution (i.e., it applies to private 
copies as well). 
 * It rules out the possibility that a version be distributed on some form of 
DRM media (for technical reasons, perhaps), even while providing source 
(i.e., a transparent copy) in an unencumbered way at the same time. 
 * As written, it would outlaw actions like changing the permission of a copy 
of the document on your machine, storing it on an encrypted file system, 
distributing a copy over an encrypted link (Obstruct or control the reading 
is not clarified to apply merely to the recipient), or even storing it on a 
file-sharing system with non-world-readable permissions. 

 Consider that the GFDL currently prohibits distribution on DRM media, as 
compared to the GPL which requires distribution on non-DRM media. This is a 
serious additional restriction.

Transparent And Opaque Copies
-----------------------------
 Section 3 (Copying in Quantity) of the GFDL states that 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. 
 It is our belief 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. This is a paraphrase from the GPL FAQ 
 The requirements for redistributors should be to make sure the users can get 
the transparent form, not to force users to download the transparent form 
even if they don't want it.

> For the record, relicensing most of our documentation will be impossible.
> There are several people with stated objections to using the GPL for
> documentation, many people we have no way of contacting, and a couple who
> are no longer alive, which makes them fairly difficult to contact.
Yeah, I feared that :(

Best regards

-- 
Isaac Clerencia at Warp Networks, http://www.warp.es
Work: <isaac at warp.es>   | Debian: <isaac at debian.org>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 240 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-kde-talk/attachments/20060107/7bbe4c84/attachment.pgp