[OT] GFDL (was Re: Libiberty licensing problems & solutions [DRAFT])

[Nathanael Nerode <neroden at twcny dot rr dot com>]

Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2003 15:32:58 -0400
> > From: Nathanael Nerode <neroden@twcny.rr.com>
> >
> > I'm opposed to the GFDL, particularly with "Invariant Sections"
>
>
> Can you tell why?

Yes.  It's way off topic, so if anyone is bored by licensing and 
software freedom issues, stop reading now.

The "Invariant Sections" are non-removable.  They constitute a 
restriction on the modifiability of the technical material.  This makes 
documents licensed under the GFDL with invariant sections non-free.

The restriction is not a trivial restriction.  It is a troublesome one, 
for many reasons:
* Being forced to retain inaccurate Invariant Sections
* Being forced to retain obsolete Invariant Sections
* Being forced to retain offensive Invariant Sections
* Being forced to retain technically inappropriate Invariant Sections 
(This one has *already happened* with the Wikipedia.  They "fixed" it by 
a unilateral relicensing without invariant sections -- which, 
unfortunately, they probably don't actually have the legal right to do. 
 Bad, bad situation.)
* Being forced to retain Invariant Sections even in extremely 
space-tight environments (for instance, a reference card)
* Being forced to retain untranslated Invariant Sections in a translation
* Being unable to use material from the document for a new document 
whose primary topic is that of an Invariant Section (because the 
Invariant Section must be retained, but must be Secondary, and would no 
longer be Secondary).
* Invariant Section 'bloat'.  The natural response to several of the 
above problems is to add new Invariant Sections, saying "I think the old 
Invariant Section is inaccurate/obsolete/offensive" or "This is a 
translation of the old Invariant Sections".  These will accumulate and 
will also be unremovable.

The GFDL has other major practical problems.
* The license must be embedded into the document, rather than 
distributed with the document; this causes problems in space-tight 
situations.
* The GFDL is GPL-incompatible in both directions.  Sections from a 
GFDL'ed manual cannot freely be used in integrated help text in a GPL'ed 
program. Sections from a GPL'ed program cannot freely be used in 
examples in a GFDL'ed manual.

These make the GFDL not only a non-free license, but also a very poor 
license for manuals for free programs.

If the FSF wishes to license certain manuals under non-free licenses, to 
oblige people to reproduce "Funding Free Software" or the "GNU 
Manifesto" whenever they distribute the manual, that's acceptable to me, 
because I believe that not everything needs to be free.  I would be 
perfectly happy if a few GNU manuals were in this non-free state while 
most were free.  I believe some contributors would be unwilling to 
contribute to the non-free manuals, while others would be perfectly 
happy to.

However, calling the GFDL a "free" license is an act of dishonesty, 
hypocrisy, or perhaps simply extreme incompetence.  The FSF's inaccurate 
description of it as a "free" license, and its practice of encouraging 
other people to use Invariant Sections (rather than emphasizing that 
they should be avoided), is harming the cause of free documentation more 
than anyone else ever could.  It's sad.

--Nathanael Nerode

--
This message may be freely reproduced verbatim. In fact, I encourage it. :-)