GFDL

GNU Free Documentation License (GNU FDL或簡稱GFDL)係一個反版權嘅授權，畀自由文件用嘅。佢由Free Software Foundation (FSF)創造，for the GNU project. It is the counterpart to the GNU GPL 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) then the original document or source code must be made available to the work's recipient.

The license was designed for manuals, textbooks, other reference and instructional materials, and documentation which often accompanies GPL software. However, it can be used for any text-based work, regardless of subject matter.

聽吓GFDL協議原文

錄咗音嘅GNU Free Documentation License全文。

播呢個檔案有問題？睇吓媒體幫手。

GNU logo (a stylized gnu )的GNU标识（一程式化的GNU ） GNU Free Documentation License ( GNU FDL或簡稱GFDL )係一個反版權嘅授權，畀自由文件用嘅。佢由Free Software Foundation (FSF)創造，for the GNU project. GNU自由文档许可证（或简称的GNU的FDL GFDL ）系一个反版权慨授权，畀自由文件用慨。渠由自由软件基金会（ FSF ）创造，为GNU项目。 It is the counterpart to the GNU GPL 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.这是对应使用 GNU GPL ，使读者有相同的权利，以复制，散布和修改工作，并要求所有副本和衍生工具可在相同的许可证。 Copies may also be sold commercially, but if produced in larger quantities (greater than 100) then the original document or source code must be made available to the work's recipient.文本亦可商业销售，但如果大量生产的（大于100 ），则原始文件或源代码必须提供工作的收件人。

The license was designed for manuals , textbooks, other reference and instructional materials, and documentation which often accompanies GPL software.许可证，设计手册，教科书，参考资料和其他教学材料和文件往往伴随GPL软件。 However, it can be used for any text-based work, regardless of subject matter.然而，它可用于任何基于文本的工作，无论题材。

聽吓GFDL協議原文 ( file info ) — play in browser ( beta ) 听吓GFDL协议原文（档案资料） - 在浏览器（测试版）錄咗音嘅GNU Free Documentation License全文。录咗音慨GNU自由文档许可证全文。 Problems listening to the file? 问题听取档案？ See media help . 看到媒体的帮助。

中学部分

呢個條款explicitly separates從"Secondary Sections"變成任何類型嘅｢文件｣，which可能唔integrated with the Document, but exist as front-matter materials or appendices.呢个条款明确分开从“二级栏目”变成任何类型慨“文件” ，这可能唔结合的文件，但存在的前端事项材料或附录。 Secondary sections can contain information regarding the作者或者印刷者relationship to the subject matter, but not any subject matter itself.中学部分可以包含有关作者或者印刷者的关系的主题，但没有任何题材本身。 While the Document itself is wholly editable, and is essentially covered by a license equivalent to (but both-ways 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.虽然该文件本身是完全可编辑的，而且基本上是涵盖的许可证相当于（但，如何不符合）的GNU通用公共许可证，一些次要章节有各种限制的主要目的，处理适当的归属前作者。

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.具体来说，作者先前版本都必须承认和肯定“不变节”所指明原作者和处理他或她的关系的主题事项不得变更。 If the material is modified, its title has to be changed (unless the prior authors give permission to retain the title).如果该材料被修改，其名称已被更改（除非事先作者允许保留所有权）。 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.许可还规定处理封面和背面盖文的书籍，以及为“历史” ， “致谢” ， “奉献”和“认可”部分。

Commercial redistribution 商业再分配

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. GFDL需要的能力， “复制和分发文件，任何媒体，无论是商业或noncommercially ” ，因此不符合材料，排除商业再利用。 Material that restricts commercial re-use is incompatible with the license and cannot be incorporated into the work.材料，限制商业重新使用不符合许可，不能纳入工作。 However, incorporating such restricted material may be fair use under United States copyright law and does not need to be licensed to fall within the GFDL if such fair use is covered by all potential subsequent uses.一個例子係of such liberal and commercial fair use is parody .然而，将这种物质可能会限制公平使用根据美国版权法，并不需要得到许可范围内的GFDL如合理使用所涵盖所有潜在以后使用。一个例子系这种自由和公平的商业使用模仿。

Criticism of the GFDL 批判GFDL

The Debian project and Nathanael Nerode have raised objections. [1] 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. [2] These critics recommend the use of alternate licenses such as the share-alike Creative Commons licenses , the BSD Documentation License , or even the GNU GPL. Debian项目和拿Nerode已经提出异议。 [ 1 ] Debian开发最终表决审议工作许可的GFDL遵守其Debian自由软件指导方针提供了不变节条款没有使用。 [ 2 ]这些批评建议使用候补授权，如股票一样创作共用许可，使用 BSD 文档许可证，或什至使用GNU GPL 。 They consider the GFDL a non-free license.他们认为GFDL非免费许可证。 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". [3]造成这种情况的原因是， GFDL让“不变”的文字，不能被修改或删除，并禁止其数字版权管理（ DRM ）系统适用于有效的惯例一样，为“私人拷贝，而不是分散。 ”

Overly broad DRM clause 过于宽泛的DRM条款

The GNU FDL contains the statement:在GNU的FDL包含声明：

You may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the reading or further copying of the copies you make or distribute.您不得使用技术措施，以阻止或控制的阅读或进一步复制的副本或分发您。

A criticism of this language is that it is too broad, because it applies to private copies made but not distributed.批判这种语言是它过于笼统，因为它适用于私人文件拷贝但分发。 This means that a licensee is not allowed to save document copies "made" in a proprietary file format or using encryption.这意味着，持牌人不得保存文件副本“提出”在一个专有的文件格式，或使用加密。

In 2003, Richard Stallman said about the above sentence on the debian-legal mailing list: 2003年， Richard Stallman 表示对上述判决的 Debian 法律邮寄名单：

This means that you cannot publish them under DRM systems to restrict the possessors of the copies.这意味着，你不能把它们发布DRM系统下限制拥有的副本。 It isn't supposed to refer to use of encryption or file access control on your own copy.这是不是指使用加密或文件的访问控制在您自己的副本。 I will talk with our lawyer and see if that sentence needs to be clarified.我会跟我们的律师，看看这句话需要加以澄清。

Invariant sections 不变节

A GNU FDL work can quickly be encumbered因為a new, different, title must be given and a list of previous titles must be kept.在GNU的FDL工作可以迅速地担保因为一个新的，不同的，必须给予所有权，并列出过去的冠军必须保持。 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.这可能导致的情况下，有一系列的标题页，和奉献，在每本书，如果有很长的谱系。 These pages cannot ever be removed, at least not until the work enters the public domain after copyright expires.这些网页可能永远不会被删除，至少直到工作进入公有领域后，版权过期。

Richard Stallman 講過 about invariant sections on the debian-legal mailing list: 理查德斯托曼讲过关于不变节的 Debian 法律邮寄名单：

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.的目标不变节，自从80年代，当我们第一次在GNU宣言第一个不变的Emacs的手册，是为了确保他们不会被删除。 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.具体来说，以确保经销商也分发Emacs的非自由软件无法删除的声明我们的哲学，他们可能会认为这样做是因为这些发言批评他们的行动。

GPL incompatible in both directions [ 编辑 ] 不兼容GPL的两个方向

The GNU FDL is incompatible in both directions with the GPL: that is GNU FDL material cannot be put into GPL code and GPL code cannot be put into a GNU FDL manual.在GNU的FDL不符两个方向与GPL ：这是材料的GNU的FDL不能付诸GPL代码和GPL代码不能投入的GNU的FDL手册。 Because of this, code samples are often dual-licensed so that they may appear in documentation and can be incorporated into a free software program.由于这一原因，代码样本往往双重许可，使它们可能会出现在文件和可以被纳入一个免费的软件程序。

At the 2006年 6月22號－ 23號international GPLv3 conference in Barcelona, Moglen hinted that a future version of the GPL could be made suitable for documentation: [4]在2006年 6月22号 - 23号的国际会议在西班牙巴塞罗那的GPLv3 ，莫格林暗示，未来版本的GPL可以作出适当的文件： [ 4 ]

By expressing LGPL as just an additional permission on top of GPL we simplify our licensing landscape drastically.表示LGPL的只是一个额外的许可GPL的顶部，我们简化了我们的许可景观迥然不同。 It's like for physics getting rid of a force, right?这就像物理学摆脱力量，对不对？ We just unified electro-weak , ok?我们只是统一的电弱，好吗？ The grand unified field theory still escapes us until the document licences too are just additional permissions on top of GPL. 大统一场理论仍然逃脱我们直到文件牌照也只是更多的权限，顶部的GPL 。 I don't know how we'll ever get there, that's gravity, it's really hard.我不知道我们会永远那里，这是重力，这真的很难。

GFDL文件印刷後 [ 编辑 ] GFDL文件印刷后

The GNU FDL requires that licenses, when printing a文件covered by the license, must also include "this License, the copyright notices, and the license notice saying this License applies to the Document".咁樣表示咗如果一篇文licensee prints out a copy of an article whose text is covered under the GNU FDL, he or she must also include a copyright notice and a physical printout of the GNU FDL, which is a significantly large document in itself.在GNU的FDL需要许可证，打印文件时，所涉及的执照，还必须包括“本许可证，版权声明，并通知说，这一授权许可适用的文件。 ”咁样表示咗如果一篇文持牌打印一个副本的一篇文章，其文字所涵盖的GNU的FDL时，他或她还必须包括版权声明和实际打印的GNU的FDL ，这是一个显着大量文件本身。

Transparent formats [ 编辑 ] 透明格式

The definition of a "transparent" format is complicated, and may be difficult to apply.定义的“透明”的格式是复杂的，可能难以适用。 For example, drawings are required to be in a format that allows them to be revised straightforwardly with "some widely available drawing editor."例如，图纸都必须在一个格式，让他们加以修订直截了当的“一些广泛使用绘图编辑器。 ” The definition of "widely available" may be difficult to interpret, and may change over time, since, eg, the open-source Inkscape編輯者is rapidly maturing, but has not yet reached version 1.0. “的定义广泛使用”可能难以解释，并可能随着时间而改变，因为，如开源Inkscape编辑者正在迅速成熟，但还没有达到1.0版本。 This section, which was rewritten somewhat between versions 1.1 and 1.2 of the license, uses the terms "widely available" and "proprietary" inconsistently and without defining them.这一节，这是改写有些版本之间1.1和1.2的许可，使用了“普及”和“专利”不一致和没有界定。 According to a strict interpretation of the license, the references to "generic text editors" could be interpreted as ruling out a format used by an open-source word-processor such as Abiword ; according to a loose interpretation, however, Microsoft Word .doc format could qualify as transparent, since a subset of .doc files can be edited perfectly using OpenOffice.org , and the format therefore is not one "that can be read and edited only by proprietary word processors."根据严格的授权，提到“一般的文字编辑器”可以被解释为排除格式所使用的开放原始码文字处理器如Abiword ;根据一个松散的解释，但是，微软的Word 。文件格式有资格作为透明的，因为一个子集。 doc文件可以编辑完全使用OpenOffice.org ，以及格式因此，没有一个“ ，可以阅读和编辑只有通过专有的文字处理器。 ”

历史

The FDL was released in draft form for feedback in late 1999.被释放的延迟线以草案形式的反馈意见在1999年年底。 After revisions, version 1.1 was issued in March 2000, and version 1.2 in November 2002.经修改后， 1.1版是2000年3月印发，和1.2版本于2002年11月。 The current state of the license is version 1.2.当前的许可是1.2版。

The first discussion draft of the GNU Free Documentation License version 2 was released on September 26 2006 , along with a draft of the new GNU Simpler Free Documentation License .第一次讨论草案在GNU自由文档许可证第2版发布于2006年 9月26日，随着一项新的简单的GNU自由文档许可证。

The new draft of the GNU FDL includes a number of improvements, such as new terms crafted during the GPLv3 process to improve internationalization, clarifications to help people applying the license to audio and video, and relaxed requirements for using an excerpt from a work.新的草案在GNU的FDL包括了一些改进，如在新的条件制定的GPLv3的进程，以提高国际化，帮助人们澄清申请许可证，以音频和视频，并轻松使用所需的摘录工作。

The new proposed GNU Simpler Free Documentation License has no requirements to maintain Cover Texts and Invariant Sections.拟议的新的GNU Free Documentation License之条款简化没有要求保持不变封面文本和部门。 This will provide a simpler licensing option for authors who do not wish to use these features in the GNU FDL.这将提供一个简单的选择作者许可谁不希望使用这些功能在GNU的FDL 。

其他自由授权条款

其中一啲developed independently of the GNU FDL, while others were developed in response to perceived flaws in the GNU FDL.其中一啲自主开发的GNU层，而另一些发达国家针对知觉缺陷在GNU的FDL 。

FreeBSD Documentation License FreeBSD的文档许可证 Creative Commons licenses 创作共用许可 Design Science License 设计科学授权 Free Art license 免费艺术授权 Open Content License 开放内容许可证 Open Publication License 开放出版许可协议

参见

BSD license BSD许可证
版權版权
Copyleft 版权
Free software license 自由软件许可
GNU 的GNU
Open content 开放内容
Share-alike 分享相似
Software licensing 软件许可
Non-commercial educational 非商业教育

Secondary sections

呢個條款explicitly separates從"Secondary Sections"變成任何類型嘅｢文件｣，which可能唔integrated with the Document, but exist as front-matter materials or appendices. Secondary sections can contain information regarding the作者或者印刷者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 both-ways 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 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.

Commercial redistribution

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. 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 and does not need to be licensed to fall within the GFDL if such fair use is covered by all potential subsequent uses.一個例子係of such liberal and commercial fair use is parody.

Criticism of the GFDL

The Debian project and Nathanael Nerode have raised objections.^[1] 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.^[2] These critics recommend the use of alternate 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".^[3]

Overly broad 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因為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 ever be removed, at least not until the work enters the public domain after copyright expires.

Richard Stallman 講過 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: that is GNU FDL material cannot be put into GPL code and GPL code cannot be put into a GNU FDL manual. Because of this, code samples are often dual-licensed so that they may appear in documentation and can be incorporated into a free software program.

At the2006年 6月22號－23號international GPLv3 conference in Barcelona, Moglen hinted that a future version of the GPL could be made suitable for documentation:^[4]

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.

GFDL文件印刷後

The GNU FDL requires that licenses, when printing a文件covered by the license, must also include "this License, the copyright notices, and the license notice saying this License applies to the Document".咁樣表示咗如果一篇文licensee prints out a copy of an article whose text is covered under the GNU FDL, he or she must also include a copyright notice and a physical printout of the GNU FDL, which is a significantly large document in itself.

Transparent formats

The definition of a "transparent" format is complicated, and may be difficult to apply. For example, drawings are required to be in a format that allows them to be revised straightforwardly with "some widely available drawing editor." The definition of "widely available" may be difficult to interpret, and may change over time, since, e.g., the open-source Inkscape編輯者is rapidly maturing, but has not yet reached version 1.0. This section, which was rewritten somewhat between versions 1.1 and 1.2 of the license, uses the terms "widely available" and "proprietary" inconsistently and without defining them. According to a strict interpretation of the license, the references to "generic text editors" could be interpreted as ruling out a format used by an open-source word-processor such as Abiword; according to a loose interpretation, however, Microsoft Word .doc format could qualify as transparent, since a subset of .doc files can be edited perfectly using OpenOffice.org, and the format therefore is not one "that can be read and edited only by proprietary word processors."

歷史

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

The first discussion draft of the GNU Free Documentation License version 2 was released on September 26 2006, along with a draft of the new GNU Simpler Free Documentation License.

The new draft of the GNU FDL includes a number of improvements, such as new terms crafted during the GPLv3 process to improve internationalization, clarifications to help people applying the license to audio and video, and relaxed requirements for using an excerpt from a work.

The new proposed GNU Simpler Free Documentation License has no requirements to maintain Cover Texts and Invariant Sections. This will provide a simpler licensing option for authors who do not wish to use these features in the GNU FDL.

其他自由授權條款

其中一啲developed independently of the GNU FDL, while others were developed in response to perceived flaws in the GNU FDL.

參見

註解

連出去

GFDL official text
The GNU Free Documentation License
Free Software and Free Manuals
Why Wikitravel isn't GFDL: Problems with using the GFDL for short printed texts
The Free Universal Encyclopedia And Learning Resource
Guide to the new drafts of documentation licenses

[1] ttps://people.debian.org/~srivasta/Position_Statement.xhtml

[2] ttps://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_001

[3] ttps://home.twcny.rr.com/nerode/neroden/fdl.html

[4] ttps://fsfeurope.org/projects/gplv3/barcelona-moglen-transcript#lgpl

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]