GFDL invariant sections question

[Jilayne Lovejoy]

Hi all,

Fedora lists the GNU Free Documentation License as "good" for 
documentation. the GFDL has this concept of "invariant sections" which 
can be declared or not in the license header. If this is used, then it 
creates some restrictions for those sections and there are some other 
specific obligations in the license. (I'm not going to try to explain 
this here, but if you are interested, this is probably a better summary 
than trying to actually parse the text of the license 
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl-howto-opt.en.html)

Does any one know if GFDL is approved for Fedora regardless of if the 
invariant section is triggered?

Thanks,
Jilayne

[Richard Fontana]

On Thu, Mar 3, 2022 at 3:45 PM Jilayne Lovejoy  wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Fedora lists the GNU Free Documentation License as "good" for documentation. the GFDL has this concept of "invariant sections" which can be declared or not in the license header. If this is used, then it creates some restrictions for those sections and there are some other specific obligations in the license. (I'm not going to try to explain this here, but if you are interested, this is probably a better summary than trying to actually parse the text of the license https://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl-howto-opt.en.html)
>
> Does any one know if GFDL is approved for Fedora regardless of if the invariant section is triggered?

I think so, because doesn't the GFDL-licensed documentation in
Fedora-packaged GNU projects use invariant sections? Probably easy to
check.

Richard

[Jilayne Lovejoy]

On 3/3/22 2:18 PM, Richard Fontana wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 3, 2022 at 3:45 PM Jilayne Lovejoy  wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Fedora lists the GNU Free Documentation License as "good" for documentation. the GFDL has this concept of "invariant sections" which can be declared or not in the license header. If this is used, then it creates some restrictions for those sections and there are some other specific obligations in the license. (I'm not going to try to explain this here, but if you are interested, this is probably a better summary than trying to actually parse the text of the license https://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl-howto-opt.en.html)
> >
> > Does any one know if GFDL is approved for Fedora regardless of if the invariant section is triggered?
>
> I think so, because doesn't the GFDL-licensed documentation in
> Fedora-packaged GNU projects use invariant sections? Probably easy to
> check.

let's go with that then :)  not sure how much time we want to spend on 
documentation/content licenses...

I would be curious if either of you knew how much customers care about 
these licenses??
> Richard

[Florian Weimer]

* Richard Fontana:
> On Thu, Mar 3, 2022 at 3:45 PM Jilayne Lovejoy  wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Fedora lists the GNU Free Documentation License as "good" for documentation. the GFDL has this concept of "invariant sections" which can be declared or not in the license header. If this is used, then it creates some restrictions for those sections and there are some other specific obligations in the license. (I'm not going to try to explain this here, but if you are interested, this is probably a better summary than trying to actually parse the text of the license https://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl-howto-opt.en.html)
> >
> > Does any one know if GFDL is approved for Fedora regardless of if the invariant section is triggered?
>
> I think so, because doesn't the GFDL-licensed documentation in
> Fedora-packaged GNU projects use invariant sections? Probably easy to
> check.

Correct, the glibc manual has a non-trivial invariant section (that is
not the license text itself, that happens from time to time, too).

Thanks,
Florian

[Jilayne Lovejoy]

On 3/3/22 2:54 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> Richard Fontana:
> > On Thu, Mar 3, 2022 at 3:45 PM Jilayne Lovejoy  wrote:
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > Fedora lists the GNU Free Documentation License as "good" for documentation. the GFDL has this concept of "invariant sections" which can be declared or not in the license header. If this is used, then it creates some restrictions for those sections and there are some other specific obligations in the license. (I'm not going to try to explain this here, but if you are interested, this is probably a better summary than trying to actually parse the text of the license https://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl-howto-opt.en.html)
> > >
> > > Does any one know if GFDL is approved for Fedora regardless of if the invariant section is triggered?
> >
> > I think so, because doesn't the GFDL-licensed documentation in
> > Fedora-packaged GNU projects use invariant sections? Probably easy to
> > check.
>
> Correct, the glibc manual has a non-trivial invariant section (that is
> not the license text itself, that happens from time to time, too).

thanks - that makes sense, especially in light of the article I cited 
above, which I don't think I've read before or not recently and sheds 
light on the rationale for the invariant section part of GFDL that I 
admittedly have always found a bit perplexing.

Reason for asking - I'm trying to finish up the compare of "good" 
licenses (for documentation and content) in terms of whether they are on 
the SPDX License List, which somewhat recently altered the GFDL 
identifiers to differentiate on the invariant aspect due to someone 
raising that is makes a difference as to obligations under the license. 
So... hence the question of if Fedora considers all versions and 
regardless of invariant sections as "good". I think you and Richard have 
provided enough for the answer.

I was also inquiring internally as to whether this ever comes up in 
questions with Red Hat customers or more broadly and I think that 
question may have come across here - sorry about that! I was curious if 
the presence of the invariant section being triggered impact comfort 
with use of GFDL more widely (beyond Fedora). I hope not...
>

[Richard Fontana]

On Thu, Mar 3, 2022 at 5:04 PM Jilayne Lovejoy  wrote:
> I'm trying to finish up the compare of "good"
> licenses (for documentation and content) in terms of whether they are on
> the SPDX License List, which somewhat recently altered the GFDL
> identifiers to differentiate on the invariant aspect due to someone
> raising that is makes a difference as to obligations under the license.

Without having thought about it before (in the SPDX context), that
seems to make sense to me (at the cost of greater identifier
complexity).
> So... hence the question of if Fedora considers all versions and
> regardless of invariant sections as "good". I think you and Richard have
> provided enough for the answer.
>
> I was also inquiring internally as to whether this ever comes up in
> questions with Red Hat customers or more broadly and I think that
> question may have come across here - sorry about that! I was curious if
> the presence of the invariant section being triggered impact comfort
> with use of GFDL more widely (beyond Fedora). I hope not...

In many years of dealing with FOSS licensing stuff for Red Hat I can't
think of a single case where a customer brought up any concerns about
the GFDL. Of course I've long been aware of how it's a controversial
license in the broader Linux community.

Richard