Misplaced Pages

GNU Free Documentation License: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 07:34, 29 January 2002 view sourceTarquin (talk | contribs)14,993 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit Latest revision as of 19:12, 22 December 2024 view source Meno25 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators215,933 edits →See also 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Short description|Copyleft license primarily for free software documentation}}
The '''GNU Free Documentation License''' (GFDL) is a ] license for ], designed by the ] (FSF) for the ] project. The official text of version 1.1 of the license text can be found at . Here is Misplaced Pages's uneditable ; this needs some more work before it constitutes a proper copy of the license.
{{Redirect|GFDL}}
{{pp-semi-indef}}
{{pp-move-indef}}
{{Use American English|date=September 2020}}
{{Use mdy dates|date=March 2024}}
{{Infobox software license
| name = GNU Free Documentation License
| image = ]
| caption = The GFDL logo
| author = ]
| version = 1.3
| publisher = Free Software Foundation, Inc.
| date = November 3, 2008 (current version)
| spdx = {{Unbulleted list|GFDL-1.3-or-later
|GFDL-1.3-only
|GFDL-1.2-or-later
|GFDL-1.2-only
|GFDL-1.1-or-later
|GFDL-1.1-only
}}
()
| Debian approved = Yes, with no invariant sections (see below)
| GPL compatible = No
| copyleft = Yes
}}
The '''GNU Free Documentation License''' ('''GNU FDL''' or '''GFDL''') is a ] ] for free documentation, designed by the ] (FSF) for the ]. It is similar to the ], giving readers the rights to copy, redistribute, and modify (except for "invariant sections") 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 ]s, 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, the free online encyclopedia ] uses the GFDL<ref>{{Citation|title=Misplaced Pages:About|date=July 26, 2018|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:About&oldid=852074540#Trademarks_and_copyrights|work=Misplaced Pages|language=en|access-date=September 7, 2018}}</ref> (coupled with the ]) for much of its text, excluding text that was imported from other sources after the 2009 licensing update that is only available under the Creative Commons license.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Licensing_update|title=Misplaced Pages:Licensing update|date=June 14, 2009|quote=With the transition, the Misplaced Pages community will now be allowed to import CC-BY-SA text from external sources into articles. If you do this, the origin of the material and its license should be explicitly noted in the edit summary. If the source text is dual- or multi-licensed, it is only necessary that at least one of the licenses is compatible with CC-BY-SA. It is not necessary that external content be dual licensed under the GFDL.}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=29 June 2023 |title=WIKIPEDIA MOVES TO CC 4.0 LICENSES |url=https://creativecommons.org/2023/06/29/wikipedia-moves-to-cc-4-0-licenses/ |access-date=4 June 2024 |website=Creative Commons}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=FSF Releases New Version of GNU Free Documentation License — Free Software Foundation — Working together for free software |url=https://www.fsf.org/news/fdl-1.3-pr.html |access-date=2024-06-04 |website=www.fsf.org}}</ref>
The license is designed for software documentation and other reference and instructional materials. It stipulates that any copy of the material, even if modified, carry the same license. Those copies may be sold but, if produced in quantity, have to be made available in a format which facilitates further editing.


=== Secondary Sections === == History ==
The GFDL was released in draft form for feedback in September 1999.<ref>{{cite newsgroup |title=New Documentation License—Comments Requested |author=Richard Stallman |date=September 12, 1999 |newsgroup=gnu.misc.discuss |message-id=gnusenet199909120759.DAA04152@psilocin.gnu.org |url=http://tech-insider.org/free-software/research/1999/0912.html |access-date=August 17, 2017}}</ref> After revisions, version 1.1 was issued in March 2000, version 1.2 in November 2002, and version 1.3 in November 2008. The current state of the license is version 1.3.<ref name="onepoint3faq">{{cite web|url=https://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl-1.3-faq.html |title=GFDL v1.3 FAQ |publisher=GNU |access-date=November 7, 2011}}</ref>


On December 1, 2007, Misplaced Pages founder ] announced that a long period of discussion and negotiation between and amongst the Free Software Foundation, Creative Commons, the ] and others had produced a proposal supported by both the FSF and Creative Commons to modify the Free Documentation License in such a fashion as to allow the possibility for the Wikimedia Foundation to migrate the projects to the similar ] (CC BY-SA) license.<ref>{{cite web |last=Lessig |first=Lawrence |url=http://lessig.org/blog/2007/12/some_important_news_from_wikip.html |title=Some important news from Misplaced Pages to understand clearly |publisher=Lessig Blog |date=December 1, 2007 |access-date=November 7, 2011 |archive-date=October 26, 2011 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111026061623/http://lessig.org/blog/2007/12/some_important_news_from_wikip.html |url-status=dead }}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://wikimediafoundation.org/Resolution:License_update |title=Resolution:License update |publisher=Wikimedia Foundation |access-date=November 7, 2011}}</ref> These changes were implemented on version 1.3 of the license, which includes a new provision allowing certain materials released under the (GFDL) license to be used under a Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike license also.<ref name="onepoint3faq"/>
The license explicitly separates the "]" from "]", which may not be integrated with the Document, but exist as front-matter materials or appendices. Secondary sections can contain information regarding the author's or publisher's relationship to the subject matter, but not any subject matter itself. While the Document itself is wholly editable, and is essentially covered by a license equivalent to the ], some of the secondary sections have various restrictions designed primarily to deal with proper attribution to previous authors.


== Conditions ==
Specifically, the authors of prior versions have to be acknowledged and certain "invariant sections" specified by the original author and dealing with his or her relationship to the subject matter may not be changed. If the material is modified, its title has to be changed (unless the prior authors give permission to retain the title). The license also has provisions for the handling of front-cover and back-cover texts of books, as well as for "History", "Acknowledgements", "Dedications" and "Endorsements" sections.
Material licensed under the current version of the license can be used for any purpose, as long as the use meets certain conditions.
* All previous authors of the work must be ].
* All changes to the work must be logged.
* All ]s must be licensed under the same license.
* The full text of the license, unmodified invariant sections as defined by the author if any, and any other added warranty disclaimers (such as a general disclaimer alerting readers that the document may not be accurate for example) and copyright notices from previous versions must be maintained.
* Technical measures such as ] may not be used to control or obstruct distribution or editing of the document.


=== Using the GFDL === === Secondary sections ===
The license explicitly separates any kind of "Document" from "Secondary Sections", which may not be integrated with the Document, but exist as front-matter materials or appendices. Secondary sections can contain information regarding the author's or publisher's relationship to the subject matter, but not any subject matter itself. While the Document itself is wholly editable and is essentially covered by a license equivalent to (but mutually incompatible with) the ], some of the secondary sections have various restrictions designed primarily to deal with proper attribution to previous authors.
For a document to be covered by the GFDL, one must include a ].


Specifically, the authors of prior versions have to be acknowledged and certain "invariant sections" specified by the original author and dealing with his or her relationship to the subject matter may not be changed. If the material is modified, its title has to be changed (unless the prior authors permit to retain the title).
== Note about Misplaced Pages's use of the GNU Free Documentation License ==


The license also has provisions for the handling of front-cover and back-cover texts of books, as well as for "History", "Acknowledgements", "Dedications" and "Endorsements" sections. These features were added in part to make the license more financially attractive to commercial publishers of software documentation, some of whom were consulted during the drafting of the GFDL.<ref name=why>{{cite web |first1=Richard |last1=Stallman |url=https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-gfdl.html |title=Why publishers should use the GNU FDL |access-date=July 17, 2009 |website=GNU}}</ref><ref name="gnufaq">GNU Project: ""</ref> "Endorsements" sections are intended to be used in official standard documents, where the distribution of modified versions should only be permitted if they are not labeled as that standard anymore.<ref name="gnufaq"/>
All ] (and ]) content is covered by the GNU Free Documentation License. The details necessary for proper licensing under the GFDL were discussed on ] in October 2001 (see also ]).


=== Commercial redistribution ===
Misplaced Pages and Nupedia's use of the GFDL began in January, 2001, and has won the project the support of Richard Stallman of the FSF. See . It has long been the understanding of Misplaced Pages principals (] and ] at least) that, as in the case of Nupedia (see and ), links back to original Misplaced Pages articles would be required from anyone who used Misplaced Pages articles. (Jimbo confirms that Stallman agreed that the license permits this. ) Misplaced Pages principals have, recently, finally gotten around to making this requirement explicit for Misplaced Pages (as it has been for Nupedia), which has caused some controversy. (See and ].)
The GFDL requires the ability to "copy and distribute the Document in any medium, either commercially or noncommercially" and therefore is incompatible with material that excludes commercial re-use. As mentioned above, the GFDL was designed with commercial publishers in mind, as Stallman explained:{{quote|The GFDL is meant as a way to enlist commercial publishers in funding free documentation without surrendering any vital liberty. The 'cover text' feature, and certain other aspects of the license that deal with covers, title page, history, and endorsements, are included to make the license appealing to commercial publishers for books whose authors are paid.<ref name=why/>}} Material that restricts commercial re-use is incompatible with the license and cannot be incorporated into the work. However, incorporating such restricted material may be ] under United States copyright law (or ] in some other countries) and does not need to be licensed to fall within the GFDL if such fair use is covered by all potential subsequent uses. One example of such liberal and commercial fair use is ].


===Compatibility with Creative Commons licensing terms===
One of the issues being discussed is the requirement (by Misplaced Pages principals Jimbo Wales and Larry M. Sanger in October 2001) that one use a HTML banner (back reference) on any page on another web site or CDROM on which Misplaced Pages content appears, or (also now strongly supported by Misplaced Pages principals) a text link. Please note the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) says that the license must be included in every copy of a document. This means that the back reference should at least include a link to the GFDL which is not the case yet in the Wales/Sanger proposal (or requirement as they like to put it).
Although the two licenses work on similar copyleft principles, the GFDL is not compatible with the ].


However, at the request of the ],<ref name="onepoint3faq"/> version 1.3 added a time-limited section allowing specific types of websites using the GFDL to additionally offer their work under the CC BY-SA license. These exemptions allow a GFDL-based collaborative project with multiple authors to transition to the CC BY-SA 3.0 license, without first obtaining the permission of every author, if the work satisfies several conditions:<ref name="onepoint3faq"/>
Note that international copyright law (including the US law) states they cannot change the license without the written consent of the other authors. The principals are aware of this but they believe their requirement/proposal falls within the scope of the license.
* The work must have been produced on a "Massive Multiauthor Collaboration Site" (MMC), such as a public ] for example.
* If external content originally published on a MMC is present on the site, the work must have been licensed under Version 1.3 of the GNU FDL, or an earlier version but with the "or any later version" declaration, with no cover texts or invariant sections. If it was not originally published on an MMC, it can only be ] if it were added to an MMC before November 1, 2008.


To prevent the clause from being used as a general compatibility measure, the license itself only allowed the change to occur before August 1, 2009. At the release of version 1.3, the FSF stated that all content added before November 1, 2008, to Misplaced Pages as an example satisfied the conditions. The Wikimedia Foundation itself after a public referendum, invoked this process to ] content released under the GFDL under the ] license in June 2009, and adopted a foundation-wide attribution policy for the use of content from Wikimedia Foundation projects.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://blog.wikimedia.org/2009/05/21/wikimedia-community-approves-license-migration/ |date=May 21, 2009 |first1=Jay |last1=Walsh |title=Wikimedia community approves license migration |website=Diff |publisher=Wikimedia Foundation|access-date=May 21, 2009}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=Resolution:Licensing update approval |url=https://wikimediafoundation.org/Resolution:Licensing_update_approval |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200802003719/https://foundation.wikimedia.org/Resolution:Licensing_update_approval |archive-date=August 2, 2020 |website=Wikimedia Foundation Governance Wiki}}</ref><ref>"" on Diff by Erik Moeller on June 30, 2009, "Perhaps the most significant reason to choose CC-BY-SA as our primary content license was to be compatible with many of the other admirable endeavors out there to share and develop free knowledge".</ref>
Please see Misplaced Pages's for details. What exactly can and should be required is under active consideration, and the founders and managers of the Misplaced Pages project will be working together with all interested Wikipedians to arrive at a mutually agreeable solution on ].


==Enforcement==
]
There have currently been no cases involving the GFDL in a court of law, although its sister license for software, the ], has been successfully enforced in such a setting.<ref>{{cite web|title=BusyBox and the GPL Prevail Again – Updated 4Xs |url=http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20100803132055210 |first=Pamela|last=Jones |work=] |date=August 3, 2010|access-date=May 17, 2019}}</ref> Although the content of ] has been plagiarized and used in violation of the GFDL by other sites, such as ], no contributors have ever tried to bring an organization to court due to violation of the GFDL. In the case of Baidu, Misplaced Pages representatives asked the site and its contributors to respect the terms of the licenses and to make proper attributions.<ref>{{cite news
----
|url=http://www.pcworld.com/article/135550/article.html
See also:
|title=Baidu May Be Worst Misplaced Pages Copyright Violator
* ]
|publisher=]
* ]: a similar license for software
|date=August 6, 2007
* ]
|access-date=September 10, 2007
|archive-date=April 21, 2016
|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160421051401/http://www.pcworld.com/article/135550/article.html
|url-status=dead
}}</ref>

==Criticism==
Some critics consider the GFDL a non-free license. Some reasons for this are that the GFDL allows "invariant" text which cannot be modified or removed, and that its prohibition against ] (DRM) systems applies to valid usages, like for "private copies made and not distributed".<ref name="nerode2007">{{cite web|url=http://home.twcny.rr.com/nerode/neroden/fdl.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071210175219/http://home.twcny.rr.com/nerode/neroden/fdl.html |archive-date=December 10, 2007 |title=Why You Shouldn't Use the GNU FDL |date=December 10, 2007 |access-date=November 7, 2011|first=Nathanael|last=Nerode}}</ref>

Notably, the ] project,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://people.debian.org/~srivasta/Position_Statement.xhtml |title=Draft Debian Position Statement about the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL)|year=2006|access-date=September 25, 2007 |first=Manoj |last=Srivastava |quote=''It is not possible to borrow text from a GFDL'd manual and incorporate it in any free software program whatsoever. This is not a mere license incompatibility. It's not just that the GFDL is incompatible with this or that free software license: it's that it is fundamentally incompatible with any free software license whatsoever. So if you write a new program, and you have no commitments at all about what license you want to use, saving only that it be a free license, you cannot include GFDL'd text. The GNU FDL, as it stands today, does not meet the Debian Free Software Guidelines. There are significant problems with the license, as detailed above; and, as such, we cannot accept works licensed under the GNU FDL into our distribution.''}}</ref> ],<ref name="lwn">{{cite web |url=https://lwn.net/Articles/59147/ |archive-url=https://archive.today/20120713142623/http://lwn.net/Articles/59147/ |archive-date=July 13, 2012 |title=Thomas Bushnell dismissed from Hurd project for criticizing GFDL |publisher=archive.is |access-date=April 16, 2017 |date=November 19, 2003 |url-status=dead }}</ref> Nathanael Nerode,<ref name="nerode2003">{{cite web|url=http://home.twcny.rr.com/nerode/neroden/fdl.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20031009105046/http://home.twcny.rr.com/nerode/neroden/fdl.html |archive-date=October 9, 2003 |title=Why You Shouldn't Use the GNU FDL |access-date=November 7, 2011 |first=Nathanael |last=Nerode |date=September 24, 2003}}</ref> and ]<ref name="Bruceperens2003">{{cite web|url=https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/09/msg00091.html |publisher=lists.debian.org/debian-legal |title=stepping in between Debian and FSF |author=Bruce Perens |author-link=Bruce Perens |date=September 2, 2003 |access-date=March 20, 2016 |quote=FSF, a Free Software organization, isn't being entirely true to the Free Software ethos while it is promoting a license that allows invariant sections to be applied to anything but the license text and attribution. FSF is not Creative Commons:the documentation that FSF handles is an essential component of FSF's Free Software, and should be treated as such. In that light, the GFDL isn't consistent with the ethos that FSF has promoted for 19 years.}}</ref> have raised objections. Bruce Perens saw the GFDL even outside the "Free Software ethos":<ref name="Bruceperens2003"/>
{{quote|"FSF, a Free Software organization, isn't being entirely true to the ] ethos while it is promoting a license that allows invariant sections to be applied to anything but the license text and attribution. the GFDL isn't consistent with the ethos that FSF has promoted for 19 years."}}

In 2006, Debian developers voted to consider works licensed under the GFDL to comply with their ] provided that the invariant section clauses are not used.<ref name=debianresolution>Debian: "". 2006. (Accessed June 20, 2009)</ref> However, their resolution stated that even without invariant sections, GFDL-licensed software documentation is considered to be "still not free of trouble" by the project, namely because of its incompatibility with the major free software licenses.<ref name=debianresolution/>

Those opposed to the GFDL have recommended the use of alternative licenses such as the ] or the GNU GPL.<ref name=debianresolution/>

The ] foundation, an organization devoted to creating manuals for free software, decided to eschew the GFDL in favor of the GPL for its texts in 2007, citing the incompatibility between the two, difficulties in implementing the GFDL, and the fact that the GFDL "does not allow for easy duplication and modification", especially for digital documentation.<ref>{{cite web |title=License Change|url=http://en.flossmanuals.net/bin/view/Blog/LicenseChange/|archive-url=https://archive.today/20080228211105/http://en.flossmanuals.net/bin/view/Blog/LicenseChange/|url-status=dead|archive-date=February 28, 2008|website=] Blog |access-date=June 20, 2009 | date=June 6, 2007}}</ref>

===DRM clause===
The GNU FDL contains the statement:

{{quotation|You may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the reading or further copying of the copies you make or distribute.}}

A criticism of this language is that it is too broad, because it applies to private copies made but not distributed. This means that a licensee is not allowed to save document copies "made" in a proprietary file format or using encryption.

In 2003, ] said about the above sentence on the debian-legal mailing list:<ref>{{cite web |first1=Richard |last1=Stallman |date=September 6, 2003 |url=http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/09/msg00212.html |title=Re: A possible GFDL compromise| access-date=September 25, 2007 |website=Debian Mailing Lists – debian-legal |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231023074846/https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/09/msg00212.html |archive-date= October 23, 2023 }}</ref>

{{quotation|This means that you cannot publish them under DRM systems to restrict the possessors of the copies. It isn't supposed to refer to use of encryption or file access control on your own copy. I will talk with our lawyer and see if that sentence needs to be clarified.}}

===Invariant sections===
A GNU FDL work can quickly be encumbered because a new, different title must be given and a list of previous titles must be kept. This could lead to the situation where there are a whole series of title pages, and dedications, in each and every copy of the book if it has a long lineage. These pages cannot be removed until the work enters the ] after ] expires.

] said about invariant sections on the ''debian-legal'' mailing list:<ref>{{cite web |first1=Richard |last1=Stallman |date=August 23, 2003 |url=http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/08/msg00807.html |title=Re: A possible GFDL compromise| access-date=September 25, 2007|website=Debian Mailing Lists – debian-legal |url-status=live |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20231023074535/https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/08/msg00807.html |archive-date= October 23, 2023 }}</ref>

{{quotation|The goal of invariant sections, ever since the 80s when we first made the GNU Manifesto an invariant section in the Emacs Manual, was to make sure they could not be removed. Specifically, to make sure that distributors of Emacs that also distribute non-free software could not remove the statements of our philosophy, which they might think of doing because those statements criticize their actions.}}

===GPL incompatible in both directions===
The GNU FDL is ] in both directions with the GPL—material under the GNU FDL cannot be put into GPL code and GPL code cannot be put into a GNU FDL manual.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Braakman |first=Richard |date=April 20, 2003 |title=Re: Proposed statement wrt GNU FDL |url=http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/04/msg00258.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231208072807/https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/04/msg00258.html |archive-date=December 8, 2023 |website=Debian Mailing Lists – debian-legal}}</ref> At the June 22–23, 2006 international GPLv3 conference in Barcelona, ] hinted that a future version of the GPL could be made suitable for documentation:<ref>{{cite web |url=http://fsfe.org/projects/gplv3/barcelona-moglen-transcript#lgpl |title=Transcript of Eben Moglen at the 3rd international GPLv3 conference: LGPL, like merging electronic weak |access-date=June 20, 2009 |date=June 22, 2006 |website=Free Software Foundation Europe |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110807080218/http://fsfe.org/projects/gplv3/barcelona-moglen-transcript#lgpl |archive-date= August 7, 2011 }}</ref>

{{quotation|By expressing LGPL as just an additional permission on top of GPL we simplify our licensing landscape drastically. It's like for physics getting rid of a force, right? We just unified electro-weak, ok? The grand unified field theory still escapes us until the document licences too are just additional permissions on top of GPL. I don't know how we'll ever get there, that's gravity, it's really hard.}}

===Burdens when printing===
The GNU FDL requires that licensees, when printing a document covered by the license, must also include "this License, the copyright notices, and the license notice saying this License applies to the Document". This means that if a licensee prints out a copy of an article whose text is covered under the GNU FDL, they must also include a copyright notice and a physical printout of the GNU FDL, which is a significantly large document in itself. Worse, the same is required for the standalone use of just one (for example, Misplaced Pages) image.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://notablog.notafish.com/post/2005/04/21/26-why-the-wikimedia-projects-should-not-use-gfdl-as-a-stand-alone-license-for-images |title=Why the Wikimedia projects should not use GFDL as a stand alone license for images |publisher=Notablog.notafish.com |date=April 21, 2005 |access-date=March 14, 2021}}</ref> Several Wikimedia projects have over the years abandoned the use of GFDL, among them the English Misplaced Pages, which has relicensed the files.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://lwn.net/Articles/305892/ |first=Jonathan |last=Corbet |title=GFDL 1.3: Misplaced Pages's exit permit |date=November 5, 2008 |access-date=June 8, 2023 |newspaper=LWN.net}}</ref> ], a web site dedicated to ] travel guides, chose not to use the GFDL from the beginning because it considers it unsuitable for short printed texts.<ref>]</ref>

== Other licenses for free works ==
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]

== List of projects that use the GFDL ==
{{dynamic list}}
* Most projects of the ], including ] (excluding ] and ]) – On June 15, 2009, the Section 11 clauses were used to dual-license the content of these wikis under the Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike license and GFDL.
* An Anarchist FAQ
* ] – the project uses GFDL for articles originally from Misplaced Pages.
* ]
* ] – artist descriptions are under GFDL
* ]
* ] (now uses CC BY-SA license)
* ]
* ]
* The specification documents that define ], an ], are released under the GFDL.
* ''Abstract Algebra'' by Thomas W. Judson.<ref>{{cite web | last1=Judson | first1=Thomas W. | title=Abstract Algebra: Theory and Applications | year=2015 | url=http://abstract.ups.edu }}</ref>
* the ]'s BR Bullpen, a free user-contributed baseball wiki

== See also ==
{{Portal|Free and open-source software}}
<!-- Please keep entries in alphabetical order & add a short description ] -->
{{div col|small=yes|colwidth=20em}}
* ]
* ] * ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
{{div col end}}
<!-- please keep entries in alphabetical order -->

== References ==
{{Reflist|35em}}

==External links==
* {{Official website}}
*
* —This version is ] by the FSF.
* —This version is ] by the FSF.
{{listen|filename=GFDL (English).ogg|title=Listen to the GFDL (0:23:28) version 1.2, November 2002, (recorded 2005-05-28)|description=Audio recording of the full text of the GNU Free Documentation License.|format=]}}
*
* , essay by Richard Stallman
* {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090331154525/http://www.opensource.apple.com/cdl/ |date=March 31, 2009 }}, an alternative license

{{GNU}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Gnu Free Documentation License}}
]
]
]
]
]
]
]

Latest revision as of 19:12, 22 December 2024

Copyleft license primarily for free software documentation "GFDL" redirects here. For other uses, see GFDL (disambiguation).

GNU Free Documentation License
The GFDL logo
AuthorFree Software Foundation
Latest version1.3
PublisherFree Software Foundation, Inc.
PublishedNovember 3, 2008 (current version)
SPDX identifier
  • GFDL-1.3-or-later
  • GFDL-1.3-only
  • GFDL-1.2-or-later
  • GFDL-1.2-only
  • GFDL-1.1-or-later
  • GFDL-1.1-only
(see list for more)
Debian FSG compatibleYes, with no invariant sections (see below)
GPL compatibleNo
CopyleftYes
Websitewww.gnu.org/licenses/fdl.html Edit this on Wikidata

The GNU Free Documentation License (GNU FDL or GFDL) is a copyleft license for free documentation, designed by the Free Software Foundation (FSF) for the GNU Project. It is similar to the GNU General Public License, giving readers the rights to copy, redistribute, and modify (except for "invariant sections") 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, the free online encyclopedia Misplaced Pages uses the GFDL (coupled with the Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike License) for much of its text, excluding text that was imported from other sources after the 2009 licensing update that is only available under the Creative Commons license.

History

The GFDL was released in draft form for feedback in September 1999. After revisions, version 1.1 was issued in March 2000, version 1.2 in November 2002, and version 1.3 in November 2008. The current state of the license is version 1.3.

On December 1, 2007, Misplaced Pages founder Jimmy Wales announced that a long period of discussion and negotiation between and amongst the Free Software Foundation, Creative Commons, the Wikimedia Foundation and others had produced a proposal supported by both the FSF and Creative Commons to modify the Free Documentation License in such a fashion as to allow the possibility for the Wikimedia Foundation to migrate the projects to the similar Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike (CC BY-SA) license. These changes were implemented on version 1.3 of the license, which includes a new provision allowing certain materials released under the (GFDL) license to be used under a Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike license also.

Conditions

Material licensed under the current version of the license can be used for any purpose, as long as the use meets certain conditions.

  • All previous authors of the work must be attributed.
  • All changes to the work must be logged.
  • All derivative works must be licensed under the same license.
  • The full text of the license, unmodified invariant sections as defined by the author if any, and any other added warranty disclaimers (such as a general disclaimer alerting readers that the document may not be accurate for example) and copyright notices from previous versions must be maintained.
  • Technical measures such as DRM may not be used to control or obstruct distribution or editing of the document.

Secondary sections

The license explicitly separates any kind of "Document" from "Secondary Sections", which may not be integrated with the Document, but exist as front-matter materials or appendices. Secondary sections can contain information regarding the author's or publisher's relationship to the subject matter, but not any subject matter itself. While the Document itself is wholly editable and is essentially covered by a license equivalent to (but mutually incompatible with) the GNU General Public License, some of the secondary sections have various restrictions designed primarily to deal with proper attribution to previous authors.

Specifically, the authors of prior versions have to be acknowledged and certain "invariant sections" specified by the original author and dealing with his or her relationship to the subject matter may not be changed. If the material is modified, its title has to be changed (unless the prior authors permit to retain the title).

The license also has provisions for the handling of front-cover and back-cover texts of books, as well as for "History", "Acknowledgements", "Dedications" and "Endorsements" sections. These features were added in part to make the license more financially attractive to commercial publishers of software documentation, some of whom were consulted during the drafting of the GFDL. "Endorsements" sections are intended to be used in official standard documents, where the distribution of modified versions should only be permitted if they are not labeled as that standard anymore.

Commercial redistribution

The GFDL requires the ability to "copy and distribute the Document in any medium, either commercially or noncommercially" and therefore is incompatible with material that excludes commercial re-use. As mentioned above, the GFDL was designed with commercial publishers in mind, as Stallman explained:

The GFDL is meant as a way to enlist commercial publishers in funding free documentation without surrendering any vital liberty. The 'cover text' feature, and certain other aspects of the license that deal with covers, title page, history, and endorsements, are included to make the license appealing to commercial publishers for books whose authors are paid.

Material that restricts commercial re-use is incompatible with the license and cannot be incorporated into the work. However, incorporating such restricted material may be fair use under United States copyright law (or fair dealing in some other countries) and does not need to be licensed to fall within the GFDL if such fair use is covered by all potential subsequent uses. One example of such liberal and commercial fair use is parody.

Compatibility with Creative Commons licensing terms

Although the two licenses work on similar copyleft principles, the GFDL is not compatible with the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license.

However, at the request of the Wikimedia Foundation, version 1.3 added a time-limited section allowing specific types of websites using the GFDL to additionally offer their work under the CC BY-SA license. These exemptions allow a GFDL-based collaborative project with multiple authors to transition to the CC BY-SA 3.0 license, without first obtaining the permission of every author, if the work satisfies several conditions:

  • The work must have been produced on a "Massive Multiauthor Collaboration Site" (MMC), such as a public wiki for example.
  • If external content originally published on a MMC is present on the site, the work must have been licensed under Version 1.3 of the GNU FDL, or an earlier version but with the "or any later version" declaration, with no cover texts or invariant sections. If it was not originally published on an MMC, it can only be relicensed if it were added to an MMC before November 1, 2008.

To prevent the clause from being used as a general compatibility measure, the license itself only allowed the change to occur before August 1, 2009. At the release of version 1.3, the FSF stated that all content added before November 1, 2008, to Misplaced Pages as an example satisfied the conditions. The Wikimedia Foundation itself after a public referendum, invoked this process to dual-license content released under the GFDL under the CC BY-SA license in June 2009, and adopted a foundation-wide attribution policy for the use of content from Wikimedia Foundation projects.

Enforcement

There have currently been no cases involving the GFDL in a court of law, although its sister license for software, the GNU General Public License, has been successfully enforced in such a setting. Although the content of Misplaced Pages has been plagiarized and used in violation of the GFDL by other sites, such as Baidu Baike, no contributors have ever tried to bring an organization to court due to violation of the GFDL. In the case of Baidu, Misplaced Pages representatives asked the site and its contributors to respect the terms of the licenses and to make proper attributions.

Criticism

Some critics consider the GFDL a non-free license. Some 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".

Notably, the Debian project, Thomas Bushnell, Nathanael Nerode, and Bruce Perens have raised objections. Bruce Perens saw the GFDL even outside the "Free Software ethos":

"FSF, a Free Software organization, isn't being entirely true to the Free Software ethos while it is promoting a license that allows invariant sections to be applied to anything but the license text and attribution. the GFDL isn't consistent with the ethos that FSF has promoted for 19 years."

In 2006, Debian developers voted to consider works licensed under the GFDL to comply with their Debian Free Software Guidelines provided that the invariant section clauses are not used. However, their resolution stated that even without invariant sections, GFDL-licensed software documentation is considered to be "still not free of trouble" by the project, namely because of its incompatibility with the major free software licenses.

Those opposed to the GFDL have recommended the use of alternative licenses such as the BSD License or the GNU GPL.

The FLOSS Manuals foundation, an organization devoted to creating manuals for free software, decided to eschew the GFDL in favor of the GPL for its texts in 2007, citing the incompatibility between the two, difficulties in implementing the GFDL, and the fact that the GFDL "does not allow for easy duplication and modification", especially for digital documentation.

DRM clause

The GNU FDL contains the statement:

You may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the reading or further copying of the copies you make or distribute.

A criticism of this language is that it is too broad, because it applies to private copies made but not distributed. This means that a licensee is not allowed to save document copies "made" in a proprietary file format or using encryption.

In 2003, Richard Stallman said about the above sentence on the debian-legal mailing list:

This means that you cannot publish them under DRM systems to restrict the possessors of the copies. It isn't supposed to refer to use of encryption or file access control on your own copy. I will talk with our lawyer and see if that sentence needs to be clarified.

Invariant sections

A GNU FDL work can quickly be encumbered because a new, different title must be given and a list of previous titles must be kept. This could lead to the situation where there are a whole series of title pages, and dedications, in each and every copy of the book if it has a long lineage. These pages cannot be removed until the work enters the public domain after copyright expires.

Richard Stallman said about invariant sections on the debian-legal mailing list:

The goal of invariant sections, ever since the 80s when we first made the GNU Manifesto an invariant section in the Emacs Manual, was to make sure they could not be removed. Specifically, to make sure that distributors of Emacs that also distribute non-free software could not remove the statements of our philosophy, which they might think of doing because those statements criticize their actions.

GPL incompatible in both directions

The GNU FDL is incompatible in both directions with the GPL—material under the GNU FDL cannot be put into GPL code and GPL code cannot be put into a GNU FDL manual. At the June 22–23, 2006 international GPLv3 conference in Barcelona, Eben Moglen hinted that a future version of the GPL could be made suitable for documentation:

By expressing LGPL as just an additional permission on top of GPL we simplify our licensing landscape drastically. It's like for physics getting rid of a force, right? We just unified electro-weak, ok? The grand unified field theory still escapes us until the document licences too are just additional permissions on top of GPL. I don't know how we'll ever get there, that's gravity, it's really hard.

Burdens when printing

The GNU FDL requires that licensees, when printing a document covered by the license, must also include "this License, the copyright notices, and the license notice saying this License applies to the Document". This means that if a licensee prints out a copy of an article whose text is covered under the GNU FDL, they must also include a copyright notice and a physical printout of the GNU FDL, which is a significantly large document in itself. Worse, the same is required for the standalone use of just one (for example, Misplaced Pages) image. Several Wikimedia projects have over the years abandoned the use of GFDL, among them the English Misplaced Pages, which has relicensed the files. Wikivoyage, a web site dedicated to free content travel guides, chose not to use the GFDL from the beginning because it considers it unsuitable for short printed texts.

Other licenses for free works

List of projects that use the GFDL

This is a dynamic list and may never be able to satisfy particular standards for completeness. You can help by adding missing items with reliable sources.

See also

References

  1. "Misplaced Pages:About", Misplaced Pages, July 26, 2018, retrieved September 7, 2018
  2. "Misplaced Pages:Licensing update". June 14, 2009. With the transition, the Misplaced Pages community will now be allowed to import CC-BY-SA text from external sources into articles. If you do this, the origin of the material and its license should be explicitly noted in the edit summary. If the source text is dual- or multi-licensed, it is only necessary that at least one of the licenses is compatible with CC-BY-SA. It is not necessary that external content be dual licensed under the GFDL.
  3. "WIKIPEDIA MOVES TO CC 4.0 LICENSES". Creative Commons. June 29, 2023. Retrieved June 4, 2024.
  4. "FSF Releases New Version of GNU Free Documentation License — Free Software Foundation — Working together for free software". www.fsf.org. Retrieved June 4, 2024.
  5. Richard Stallman (September 12, 1999). "New Documentation License—Comments Requested". Newsgroup: gnu.misc.discuss. Usenet: gnusenet199909120759.DAA04152@psilocin.gnu.org. Retrieved August 17, 2017.
  6. ^ "GFDL v1.3 FAQ". GNU. Retrieved November 7, 2011.
  7. Lessig, Lawrence (December 1, 2007). "Some important news from Misplaced Pages to understand clearly". Lessig Blog. Archived from the original on October 26, 2011. Retrieved November 7, 2011.
  8. "Resolution:License update". Wikimedia Foundation. Retrieved November 7, 2011.
  9. ^ Stallman, Richard. "Why publishers should use the GNU FDL". GNU. Retrieved July 17, 2009.
  10. ^ GNU Project: "Frequently Asked Questions about the GNU Licenses: Why don't you use the GPL for manuals?"
  11. Walsh, Jay (May 21, 2009). "Wikimedia community approves license migration". Diff. Wikimedia Foundation. Retrieved May 21, 2009.
  12. "Resolution:Licensing update approval". Wikimedia Foundation Governance Wiki. Archived from the original on August 2, 2020.
  13. "Licensing update rolled out in all Wikimedia wikis" on Diff by Erik Moeller on June 30, 2009, "Perhaps the most significant reason to choose CC-BY-SA as our primary content license was to be compatible with many of the other admirable endeavors out there to share and develop free knowledge".
  14. Jones, Pamela (August 3, 2010). "BusyBox and the GPL Prevail Again – Updated 4Xs". Groklaw. Retrieved May 17, 2019.
  15. "Baidu May Be Worst Misplaced Pages Copyright Violator". PC World. August 6, 2007. Archived from the original on April 21, 2016. Retrieved September 10, 2007.
  16. Nerode, Nathanael (December 10, 2007). "Why You Shouldn't Use the GNU FDL". Archived from the original on December 10, 2007. Retrieved November 7, 2011.
  17. Srivastava, Manoj (2006). "Draft Debian Position Statement about the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL)". Retrieved September 25, 2007. It is not possible to borrow text from a GFDL'd manual and incorporate it in any free software program whatsoever. This is not a mere license incompatibility. It's not just that the GFDL is incompatible with this or that free software license: it's that it is fundamentally incompatible with any free software license whatsoever. So if you write a new program, and you have no commitments at all about what license you want to use, saving only that it be a free license, you cannot include GFDL'd text. The GNU FDL, as it stands today, does not meet the Debian Free Software Guidelines. There are significant problems with the license, as detailed above; and, as such, we cannot accept works licensed under the GNU FDL into our distribution.
  18. "Thomas Bushnell dismissed from Hurd project for criticizing GFDL". archive.is. November 19, 2003. Archived from the original on July 13, 2012. Retrieved April 16, 2017.
  19. Nerode, Nathanael (September 24, 2003). "Why You Shouldn't Use the GNU FDL". Archived from the original on October 9, 2003. Retrieved November 7, 2011.
  20. ^ Bruce Perens (September 2, 2003). "stepping in between Debian and FSF". lists.debian.org/debian-legal. Retrieved March 20, 2016. FSF, a Free Software organization, isn't being entirely true to the Free Software ethos while it is promoting a license that allows invariant sections to be applied to anything but the license text and attribution. FSF is not Creative Commons:the documentation that FSF handles is an essential component of FSF's Free Software, and should be treated as such. In that light, the GFDL isn't consistent with the ethos that FSF has promoted for 19 years.
  21. ^ Debian: "General Resolution: Why the GNU Free Documentation License is not suitable for Debian main – Amendment Text A". 2006. (Accessed June 20, 2009)
  22. "License Change". FLOSS Manuals Blog. June 6, 2007. Archived from the original on February 28, 2008. Retrieved June 20, 2009.
  23. Stallman, Richard (September 6, 2003). "Re: A possible GFDL compromise". Debian Mailing Lists – debian-legal. Archived from the original on October 23, 2023. Retrieved September 25, 2007.
  24. Stallman, Richard (August 23, 2003). "Re: A possible GFDL compromise". Debian Mailing Lists – debian-legal. Archived from the original on October 23, 2023. Retrieved September 25, 2007.
  25. Braakman, Richard (April 20, 2003). "Re: Proposed statement wrt GNU FDL". Debian Mailing Lists – debian-legal. Archived from the original on December 8, 2023.
  26. "Transcript of Eben Moglen at the 3rd international GPLv3 conference: LGPL, like merging electronic weak". Free Software Foundation Europe. June 22, 2006. Archived from the original on August 7, 2011. Retrieved June 20, 2009.
  27. "Why the Wikimedia projects should not use GFDL as a stand alone license for images". Notablog.notafish.com. April 21, 2005. Retrieved March 14, 2021.
  28. Corbet, Jonathan (November 5, 2008). "GFDL 1.3: Misplaced Pages's exit permit". LWN.net. Retrieved June 8, 2023.
  29. Wikivoyage:Project:Why Wikivoyage isn't GFDL
  30. Judson, Thomas W. (2015). "Abstract Algebra: Theory and Applications".

External links

Listen to the GFDL (0:23:28) version 1.2, November 2002, (recorded 2005-05-28) Audio recording of the full text of the GNU Free Documentation License.
Problems playing this file? See media help.
GNU Project
History
Licenses
Software
Contributors
Other topics
Categories: