The Highly Unofficial Debian Free Documentation Guidelines (DFDocG) ver 0.4 1. Free Redistribution The license of a work contained in Debian may not restrict any party from selling or giving away the work as a component of an aggregate distribution containing works from several different sources. The license may not require a royalty or other fee for such sale. [DFSG #1 with words like "software" and "program" replaced with "work"] 2. Source Code The document must be available in a Transparent format and must allow distribution in a Transparent format as well as an Opaque format. The terms Transparent and Opaque are used as defined in the GFDL version 1.2. [DFSG #2, but clarify what "Source Code" means for a document] 3. Derived Works The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original work. The license may require that the work be prominently identified as being modified (for example, changing the name of the work). [DFSG #3 with "software" changed to "work" and the sentence about licences requiring name changes in DFSG #4 reworded slightly] 4. Integrity of The Author's Document The license may restrict the distribution of modified versions of the document in certain ways. It may require the original version of the documentation to be available. The document may contain Invariant Sections which may not be modified or removed from the document. Such sections must be secondary in nature and not pertain to the main purpose of the document. (This is a compromise. The Debian Project encourages all authors not to restrict any files from being modified.) [Comparable to DFSG #4, but deals with invariant sections and original documents rather than patch-only source code.] 5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons. [Unchanged from DFSG #5] 6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the document in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the document from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research. [DFSG #6 with "program" changed to "document"] 7. Distribution of License The rights attached to the document must apply to all to whom the document is redistributed without the need for execution of an additional license by those parties. [DFSG #7 with "program" changed to "document"] 8. License Must Not Be Specific to Debian The rights attached to the document must not depend on the document's being part of a Debian system. If the document is extracted from Debian and used or distributed without Debian but otherwise within the terms of the document's license, all parties to whom the document is redistributed should have the same rights as those that are granted in conjunction with the Debian system. [DFSG #8 with "program" changed to "document"] 9. License Must Not Contaminate Other Works The license must not place restrictions on other works that are distributed along with the licensed work. For example, the license must not insist that all other works distributed on the same medium must be free software. [DFSG #9 with "program" changed to "works"] 10. Example Licenses The "GFDL", "Creative Commons Attribution License", "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License", "GPL", "BSD", and "Artistic" licenses are examples of licenses that we consider "free". We note with regret some minor incompatibilities between these Guidelines and some of the licences and hope that they will be resolved soon. [DFSG #10 with the GFDL, CCAL and CCASAL added. Add wishful thinking.] Issues: - What grounds does this still conflict with the GFDL? Do those conflicts indicate a need to change the GFDL or a need to change this document? - A lot of the problems discussed about the GFDL in Manoj's position statement (http://people.debian.org/~srivasta/Position_Statement.xhtml) are not conflicts with the DFSG but are conflicts with what people feel they *ought* to be able to do with a Free Document. Should those oughts be included here? - A lot of these sections could be the same as the ones in the DFSG if the DFSG didn't use the work 'program' so much. Is it worth trying to modify the DFSG first to make them similar, or should we get this done first and then do tidy-up? Or should we abandon the DFDocG and work on making the DFSG fit documentation better? - Should DFDocG include the GFDL as a license that's considered free? There are plainly still problems with it. Patches to this document welcome, preferably in diff -u form with an explanation at the top, sent to willy@debian.org, cc'd to debian-project. Changes from 0.3: Section 4: Reword to emphasize the restriction is on distribution of modified versions, not on performing the modifications directly. Changes from 0.2: Section 1: Reword to not use the words "software" or "program". Section 3: Reword to not use the words "software" or "program". Section 4: Put back an equivalent to "patch-only source" in the form of allowing an "original document" requirement after reviewing some of the LDP copyrights. Section 10: Add CCAL and CCASAL licences and wishful thinking. Changes from 0.1: Section 4: Allow Invariant Sections Section 10: Add GFDL as an acceptable license Add commentary on divergence from DFSG in [] after each section.