Personal tools
 
Views

Debate: GFDL

From Debatepedia

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
Revision as of 13:14, 27 May 2008 (edit)
Jonathan Winterfield (Talk | contribs)
(References:)
← Previous diff
Revision as of 14:01, 27 May 2008 (edit)
Jonathan Winterfield (Talk | contribs)
(Background and Context of Debate: - image)
Next diff →
Line 16: Line 16:
From [[Wikipedia:GFDL|GFDL]]: From [[Wikipedia:GFDL|GFDL]]:
-The GNU Free Documentation License (GNU FDL or simply GFDL) is a copyleft license for free documentation, designed by the Free Software Foundation (FSF) for the GNU project. It is the counterpart to the GNU General Public License that gives readers the same rights to copy, redistribute and modify a work and requires all copies and derivatives to be available under the same license. Copies may also be sold commercially, but, if produced in larger quantities (greater than 100), the original document or source code must be made available to the work's recipient.+[[Image:Heckert_GNU_white.jpg|right]]The GNU Free Documentation License (GNU FDL or simply GFDL) is a copyleft license for free documentation, designed by the Free Software Foundation (FSF) for the GNU project. It is the counterpart to the GNU General Public License that gives readers the same rights to copy, redistribute and modify a work and requires all copies and derivatives to be available under the same license. Copies may also be sold commercially, but, if produced in larger quantities (greater than 100), the original document or source code must be made available to the work's recipient.
The GFDL was designed for manuals, textbooks, other reference and instructional materials, and documentation which often accompanies GNU software. However, it can be used for any text-based work, regardless of subject matter. For example, Wikipedia uses the GFDL for all of its text. The GFDL was designed for manuals, textbooks, other reference and instructional materials, and documentation which often accompanies GNU software. However, it can be used for any text-based work, regardless of subject matter. For example, Wikipedia uses the GFDL for all of its text.

Revision as of 14:01, 27 May 2008

Is the GFDL a good free content license?

Contents

Background and Context of Debate:

From GFDL:

The GNU Free Documentation License (GNU FDL or simply GFDL) is a copyleft license for free documentation, designed by the Free Software Foundation (FSF) for the GNU project. It is the counterpart to the GNU General Public License that gives readers the same rights to copy, redistribute and modify a work and requires all copies and derivatives to be available under the same license. Copies may also be sold commercially, but, if produced in larger quantities (greater than 100), the original document or source code must be made available to the work's recipient.

The GFDL was designed for manuals, textbooks, other reference and instructional materials, and documentation which often accompanies GNU software. However, it can be used for any text-based work, regardless of subject matter. For example, Wikipedia uses the GFDL for all of its text.

The Debian project and Nathanael Nerode have raised objections to the license. Debian developers eventually voted to consider works licensed under the GFDL to comply with their Debian Free Software Guidelines provided the invariant section clauses are not used. These critics recommend the use of alternative licenses such as the share-alike Creative Commons licenses, the BSD Documentation License, or even the GNU GPL. They consider the GFDL a non-free license. The reasons for this are that the GFDL allows "invariant" text which cannot be modified or removed, and that its prohibition against digital rights management (DRM) systems applies to valid usages, like for "private copies made and not distributed".

This debate asks whether the GFDL is a good free content license. The GFDL is used by the largest free content site, Wikipedia.

For further information about any of the question, please click on the Image:Book.gif icon.

Is the GFDL a free content license when used without invariant sections?

Sites like Wikipedia use the GFDL without invariant sections.
END

Yes

Click on the pencil icon and research and write arguments here





No

Click on the pencil icon and research and write arguments here





Write Subquestion here...

Yes

Click on the pencil icon and research and write arguments here





No

Click on the pencil icon and research and write arguments here





Write Subquestion here...

Yes

Click on the pencil icon and research and write arguments here





No

Click on the pencil icon and research and write arguments here





References:

Related pages on Debatepedia:

External links and resources:

Problem with the site? 

Tweet a bug on bugtwits
.