Personal tools
 
Views

Debate: GFDL

From Debatepedia

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
Revision as of 21:05, 5 June 2009 (edit)
Brooks Lindsay (Talk | contribs)

← Previous diff
Current revision (17:10, 27 December 2009) (edit)
Renergy (Talk | contribs)

 
Line 18: Line 18:
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". 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.+This debate asks whether the GFDL is a good free content license. The GFDL was used by the largest free content site, Wikipedia, until Wikipedia switched to Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike (CC-by-SA) 3.0 in June 2009.
For further information about any of the question, please click on the [[Image:Book.gif]] icon. For further information about any of the question, please click on the [[Image:Book.gif]] icon.
|} |}
 +
 +{| style="width:100%; height:100px" border="0" align="center"
 +|__TOC__
 +|}
 +
{| {|
|- |-
Line 37: Line 42:
====Yes==== ====Yes====
*'''It meets the four freedoms needed for free content.''' It allows commercial use, non commercial use and derivative works and verbatim copies. *'''It meets the four freedoms needed for free content.''' It allows commercial use, non commercial use and derivative works and verbatim copies.
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
Line 47: Line 47:
====No==== ====No====
*'''It does not meet the four freedoms needed for free content.''' It allows commercial use, non commercial use and derivative works and verbatim copies except for with the text of the license, which much be redistributed with the copy. As a result, the GFDL is non free. *'''It does not meet the four freedoms needed for free content.''' It allows commercial use, non commercial use and derivative works and verbatim copies except for with the text of the license, which much be redistributed with the copy. As a result, the GFDL is non free.
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
Line 64: Line 58:
====Yes==== ====Yes====
*'''It meets the four freedoms needed for free content.''' It allows commercial use, non commercial use and derivative works and verbatim copies. It just requires a small amount of text is distributed with it. *'''It meets the four freedoms needed for free content.''' It allows commercial use, non commercial use and derivative works and verbatim copies. It just requires a small amount of text is distributed with it.
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
Line 77: Line 63:
====No==== ====No====
*'''It does not meet the four freedoms needed for free content.''' It allows commercial use, non commercial use and derivative works and verbatim copies except for with the text of the license and the invariant section, which much be redistributed with the copy. As a result, the GFDL is non free. *'''It does not meet the four freedoms needed for free content.''' It allows commercial use, non commercial use and derivative works and verbatim copies except for with the text of the license and the invariant section, which much be redistributed with the copy. As a result, the GFDL is non free.
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
Line 94: Line 74:
====Yes==== ====Yes====
''Click on the pencil icon and research and write arguments here'' ''Click on the pencil icon and research and write arguments here''
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
Line 106: Line 80:
====No==== ====No====
''Click on the pencil icon and research and write arguments here'' ''Click on the pencil icon and research and write arguments here''
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
|- |-
|WRITE CONTENT FOR THE "NO" BOX ABOVE THIS CODE colspan="2" width="45%" bgcolor="#F2F2F2" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top: 0.5em ;"| |WRITE CONTENT FOR THE "NO" BOX ABOVE THIS CODE colspan="2" width="45%" bgcolor="#F2F2F2" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top: 0.5em ;"|
-==External links== +==See also==
 + 
 +==External links and resources==
*[http://freedomdefined.org/ Definition of free content] *[http://freedomdefined.org/ Definition of free content]
*[http://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl-1.2.txt The GFDL] *[http://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl-1.2.txt The GFDL]
- 
|} |}
Line 126: Line 95:
[[Category:Open source]] [[Category:Open source]]
[[Category:Underdeveloped debates]] [[Category:Underdeveloped debates]]
 +[[Category:Law]]
 +[[Category:Copyright law]]

Current revision

[Digg]
[reddit]
[Delicious]
[Facebook]

Is the GFDL a good free content license?

Background and content

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 was used by the largest free content site, Wikipedia, until Wikipedia switched to Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike (CC-by-SA) 3.0 in June 2009.

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

Contents

[Edit]
[Delete Subquestion section]
[Add new subquestion section]
[Move subquestion section down]

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

Sites like Wikipedia use the GFDL without invariant sections. When the GFDL without invariant sections it means that you can copy GFDL work as long as you meet some conditions. This includes distributing the full GFDL.
END
[Add New]

Yes

  • It meets the four freedoms needed for free content. It allows commercial use, non commercial use and derivative works and verbatim copies.


[Add New]

No

  • It does not meet the four freedoms needed for free content. It allows commercial use, non commercial use and derivative works and verbatim copies except for with the text of the license, which much be redistributed with the copy. As a result, the GFDL is non free.


[Edit]
[Delete Subquestion section]
[Add new subquestion section]
[Move subquestion section down]
[Move subquestion section up]

Is the GFDL a free content license when used with invariant sections?

[Add New]

Yes

  • It meets the four freedoms needed for free content. It allows commercial use, non commercial use and derivative works and verbatim copies. It just requires a small amount of text is distributed with it.


[Add New]

No

  • It does not meet the four freedoms needed for free content. It allows commercial use, non commercial use and derivative works and verbatim copies except for with the text of the license and the invariant section, which much be redistributed with the copy. As a result, the GFDL is non free.


[Edit]
[Delete Subquestion section]
[Add new subquestion section]
[Move subquestion section up]

Should the Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike licenses be made compatible with the GFDL?

[Add New]

Yes

Click on the pencil icon and research and write arguments here


[Add New]

No

Click on the pencil icon and research and write arguments here


See also

External links and resources

Problem with the site? 

Tweet a bug on bugtwits
.