NotFound Wiki:Copyright

AI Note

This article, or a portion of it, was written or summarized using an AI tool.

Expert Policy Guide: Compliance Requirements for the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL 1.3 or Later) on Collaborative Artistic Documentation Sites

This guide establishes the mandatory legal and procedural actions required for contributors (licensors) and re-users (licensees) managing text-based documentation of artistic processes under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) Version 1.3 or later, within the context of a Massive Multiauthor Collaboration Site (MMC) modeled on Wikimedia policy. Compliance is essential for ensuring content freedom, perpetual accessibility, and legal interoperability.

I. Foundational Licensing Policy: GFDL 1.3 and the Mandatory Dual-License Standard

1.1 The Nature of GFDL 1.3: Copyleft Documentation for Process Descriptions

The GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL), designed by the Free Software Foundation (FSF), is fundamentally a copyleft license aimed at instruction, reference, and documentation materials. Its purpose is to ensure that the knowledge encapsulated within a document remains perpetually "free," guaranteeing readers the rights to copy, redistribute, and modify the work.

On this platform, the GFDL specifically applies to the text-based documentation—the written descriptions of artistic processes, technical methodologies, conceptual frameworks, and material documentation. It is important to note that the GFDL copyleft mandate requires all copies and derivative works, known as "Modified Versions," to be made available under the same GFDL 1.3 or later license. The license permits commercial redistribution, meaning documentation may be sold commercially without requiring additional permission from the original author, provided all mandatory license terms are met.

1.2 Mandatory Dual Licensing: GFDL 1.3 and CC BY-SA Interoperability

GFDL Version 1.3, released in November 2008, introduced a critical, time-limited provision specifically to resolve license incompatibility issues between GFDL and the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike (CC BY-SA) license. This provision was created at the request of the Wikimedia Foundation to enable large MMCs to efficiently transition their extensive bodies of work to the CC BY-SA framework without requiring explicit permission from every single multi-author contributor.

As a matter of policy, all text documentation contributed to this MMC is automatically released under a mandatory dual license: GFDL 1.3 or later and the CC BY-SA 3.0 or later license (often CC BY-SA 4.0 today). The availability of content under both licenses provides a significant benefit to re-users, as GFDL compliance, particularly concerning attribution for derivative works (Section 4 of the GFDL), can be exceptionally arduous. The stringent GFDL requirements for updating the "History" section and listing a specific number of principal authors are circumvented if the licensee chooses to comply instead with the comparatively simpler attribution requirements of the CC BY-SA license. Consequently, the mandatory dual-licensing structure acts as a critical legal mechanism, optimizing the practical reuse and application of the artistic process documentation by offering an alternative compliance pathway to licensees.

1.3 Distinguishing Content Types: Text Documentation vs. Media Files

The dual licensing of GFDL/CC BY-SA applies primarily to the textual description of the process. For visual media files, such as photographs of finished artwork, diagrams, audio, or video uploaded to the site, the licensing standard has evolved.

In alignment with current best practices established across the Wikimedia ecosystem, GFDL is actively being phased out for new media uploads. Therefore, the site policy restricts the use of GFDL as the sole license for newly contributed primary media, such as photographs, paintings, or videos, licensed on or after recent policy deadlines. Artists contributing these supporting files must instead license them under a widely accepted free license, typically CC BY-SA 4.0 or CC BY 4.0. This distinction ensures the media remains highly compatible with global open content repositories and simplifies the compliance burden for re-users who wish to integrate the visual elements of the artistic process documentation into external projects. All acceptable licenses for media must permit republication, distribution, derivative works, and commercial use, and must be perpetual and non-revocable.

II. Applied Actions for Licensors (Artists/Contributors: The Uploader’s Checklist)

The initial actions taken by the artist when contributing documentation determine the work's long-term legal viability and interoperability. Strict adherence to these requirements is mandatory.

2.1 Initial Declaration: Ensuring the "Or Later" Clause

When an artist uploads process documentation, they are licensing the work. The licensing declaration must explicitly state that the work is released under "GFDL Version 1.3 or any later version". This inclusion is not optional; it represents the mechanism by which the work automatically updates to include compatibility provisions or fixes in future versions released by the FSF. Without the "or any later version" clause, a document licensed under an earlier version (e.g., 1.2) may be legally trapped under those older terms, preventing its subsequent eligibility for relicensing under CC BY-SA 3.0/4.0 and potentially limiting its perpetual use.

2.2 MANDATORY POLICY ACTION: Avoiding Restrictive Elements

The most critical compliance action for a licensor on an MMC is the absolute prohibition on utilizing GFDL's optional restrictive clauses. Artists must not designate any part of the documentation as "Invariant Sections" or require "Cover Texts".

   Invariant Sections: These are Secondary Sections—named appendices or front matter dealing exclusively with the relationship of the authors/publishers to the subject matter (e.g., legal notices or philosophical introductions)—that licensees are forbidden from altering.

   Cover Texts: These are short, fixed text elements required to appear on the covers if the documentation is printed in quantity.

While these are technically optional features of the GFDL, their designation immediately renders the work ineligible for dual-licensing under CC BY-SA, violating the core community policy of maximum interoperability. Furthermore, if an artist attempts to designate conceptual or philosophical elements of their process as Invariant Sections, they must be aware that the GFDL strictly defines Secondary Sections as containing nothing that falls directly within the overall subject. Attempting to restrict critical procedural information under this clause fails both legally and practically, preventing necessary modification and adaptation by other users. Therefore, for an MMC focused on open collaboration, the safest and mandatory route is to designate no sections as Invariant.

2.3 Establishing Attribution and Source Designation

Licensors are required to establish a clear and verifiable record of authorship. When an artist uploads original documentation, they must clearly state that the work is "Own Work" or "Self-Published".

The licensor must utilize the site’s standardized template (analogous to the Wikimedia Information template) to provide all required metadata: Description, Source, Author, Date, and the dual License declaration. This upfront provision ensures that subsequent contributors (licensees) have sufficient data to fulfill the GFDL's complex attribution preservation mandates (Sections 2 and 4), specifically concerning listing principal authors and preserving the document's history. Finally, to ensure the documentation meets the GFDL’s requirement for providing the source (Transparent Copy), the artist must create and store the original material using open file formats free of digital restrictions management (DRM).

Licensor Action Checklist: Contributing Documentation Under GFDL 1.3 or Later

Licensor Action (Artist/Contributor)	Compliance Requirement	Rationale (Why it Matters)	Source ID
Select the License Version	Must explicitly state "GFDL Version 1.3 or any later version."	Ensures future compatibility and compliance with CC BY-SA migration eligibility.	[1, 8]
Avoid Restrictive Clauses	DO NOT specify Invariant Sections or Cover Texts.	Restrictive clauses prevent mandatory relicensing under CC BY-SA, violating site policy and inhibiting modification.	[5, 9]
Designate Source and Author	Clearly state "Own Work" and provide accurate creation date using description templates.	Fulfills foundational attribution requirements and allows verification by licensees.	[7]
Licensing Supporting Media	If uploading new photos/video, choose CC BY-SA 4.0 (or CC BY 4.0) over GFDL only.	Follows current MMC policy; GFDL is being phased out for new media.	[4, 6]
Format Requirement	Use open file formats free of DRM when creating the source material.	Essential for meeting the "Transparent Copy" definition, should source files ever be requested.	[7]

III. Applied Actions for Licensees (Re-users: Compliance Requirements for Modification)

The burden of ensuring copyleft compliance falls primarily on the licensee (the re-user) when they decide to copy, modify, or redistribute the artistic process documentation.

3.1 Fundamental Obligations for Reuse

Whether copying verbatim or creating a derivative work, the licensee is mandated to ensure that the document’s "free" status is maintained. This includes an explicit ban on employing technical measures, such as Digital Restrictions Management (DRM), to obstruct or control the reading or further copying of the materials.

For Verbatim Copying (unmodified distribution), the licensee must reproduce the full text of the GFDL 1.3 license, all existing copyright notices, and the license notice that states the license applies to the document, ensuring no other conditions are added. If distribution occurs in larger quantities (greater than 100), the additional requirements of Section 3 (Transparent Copy rule) apply.

3.2 Mandatory Actions for Creating a Modified Version (Derivative Works)

The creation of a Modified Version, such as incorporating the documentation into a physical textbook or translating it, triggers the most complex GFDL requirements, rooted in Section 4. The Modified Version must be released under precisely the GFDL 1.3 or later license.

3.2.1 Title, Publisher, and History Update

The licensee must employ a title for the Modified Version that is clearly distinct from the original and any previous versions. The Title Page (and covers) must clearly state the name of the new publisher responsible for the Modified Version.

The preservation and updating of the document's history represent the core mechanism for attribution under the GFDL. The licensee must preserve the section entitled "History," keeping its title unaltered. A new item must be added to this section stating the title, year, the names of the new authors responsible for the modification, and the new publisher. If the original document lacks a "History" section, the licensee must create one, detailing the original document’s title, year, authors, and publisher before adding the entry for the Modified Version.

3.2.2 The Challenge of Principal Authorship

For attribution on the Title Page, the licensee must list all persons or entities responsible for the modifications. Critically, this list must appear together with the names of at least five of the principal authors of the original Document (or all principal authors if there are fewer than five), unless explicitly released from this obligation.

On an MMC, determining the identity of five "principal authors" based on minor edits over a long period can be challenging. The compliance requirement is addressed by instructing licensees to interpret "principal authors" as those who made the most substantial contributions, identifiable through the wiki's version control and edit history. This practical approach addresses the gap between the GFDL’s design (for static manuals) and the reality of dynamic, high-volume collaborative environments.

3.2.3 Preservation of Secondary Sections and Non-Endorsement

Licensees must preserve any sections entitled "Acknowledgements" or "Dedications," maintaining their original title, substance, and tone. If the original document, contrary to site policy, contained Invariant Sections, the licensee must preserve these sections completely unaltered in text and title, and include their full list in the new license notice.

Furthermore, the licensee is explicitly forbidden from using the names of the original author(s) or publisher(s) to assert or imply endorsement of the Modified Version. This non-endorsement clause is crucial for protecting the professional reputation of the original artists against potential misassociation with subsequent derivative works.

Licensee Action: GFDL 1.3 Compliance for Reuse

Compliance Activity	Verbatim Copying (Sec. 2)	Creating a Modified Version (Sec. 4)	Source ID
Include Full GFDL 1.3 License Text	Mandatory in all copies.	Mandatory (Must re-release under precisely GFDL 1.3).	[2]
Reproduce Copyright/License Notices	Mandatory.	Mandatory.	[2]
Update Title/Publisher Information	Not Applicable.	Mandatory (Title must be distinct; new publisher listed).	[2]
Preserve/Update "History" Section	Not Applicable.	Mandatory (Preserve existing history; add new entry detailing modifications, new authors, and new publisher).	[2, 5]
List Authorship	Original authors listed per original document notices.	Mandatory: New authors listed PLUS at least five principal original authors must be listed on the Title Page.	[5]
Preserve Acknowledgements/Dedications	Mandatory.	Mandatory (Preserve title, substance, and tone).	[2, 10]
Digital Restrictions Management (DRM)	Must not use technical measures to obstruct copying.	Must not use technical measures to obstruct copying.	[2]

IV. Mandatory Action: Providing the Source (Transparent Copy Rule)

The GFDL requires that the source format of the documentation—the Transparent Copy—be made available under specific conditions. This rule is a cornerstone of copyleft licensing, ensuring the functional freedom and future editability of the material.

4.1 Definition: The Transparent Copy

A "Transparent Copy" is defined as a machine-readable copy of the document in a publicly available format suitable for straightforward revision using generic text, paint, or drawing editors. This provision ensures the source files are not trapped in proprietary or difficult-to-edit formats. Acceptable formats include plain ASCII, LaTeX, SGML, simple HTML, PostScript, editable PDF designed for human modification, PNG, XCF (GIMP source file), and JPG. Conversely, an "Opaque" copy is a format that hinders modification, such as a proprietary word processor file or a heavily encrypted PDF designed only for viewing.

4.2 The Threshold: Distribution in Quantity

The requirement to provide the Transparent Copy is triggered only when the licensee publishes or distributes Opaque copies (e.g., printed books or non-editable discs) numbering more than 100. This quantity threshold is specifically designed to prevent commercial exploitation from occurring without making the underlying, editable source material accessible to the recipients, thereby guaranteeing the functional freedom of the artistic documentation.

4.3 Compliance Methods and Durability Mandate

If the 100-copy threshold is met, the licensee must choose one of two compliance paths: Compliance Path A: Physical Inclusion: The machine-readable Transparent Copy must be included directly along with each Opaque copy distributed. Compliance Path B: Network Access Provision: The licensee must state clearly in or with each Opaque copy a computer-network location (URL) where the general public can freely download a complete Transparent Copy of the Document.

If Path B is chosen, the licensee assumes a long-tail operational burden known as the Durability Mandate. The licensee must take "reasonably prudent steps" to ensure that the Transparent Copy remains accessible at the stated network location until at least one year after the last time they distribute an Opaque copy of that edition. For licensees utilizing third-party retailers for commercial distribution, tracking the exact date of the final distributed copy can be extremely difficult. Therefore, prudent risk mitigation advises commercial publishers to maintain the network link for a significantly longer guaranteed period to avoid an inadvertent breach of the license terms.

Compliance for Distribution in Quantity (>100 Opaque Copies)

Requirement Triggered	Trigger Condition	Action Required	Source ID
Source Provision Mandate	Publishing or distributing Opaque copies (e.g., print books, non-editable PDFs) numbering more than 100.	Fulfills the core copyleft principle of providing the source (Transparent Copy).	[2]
Compliance Option 1: Inclusion	Distributing a copy in a physical medium.	Include a machine-readable Transparent copy along with each Opaque copy.	[2]
Compliance Option 2: Network Access	Providing access online only.	State a network location for download of the complete Transparent copy.	[2]
Accessibility Duration	Using the network access option.	Must maintain access for at least one year after the last distribution of the Opaque copy.	[5]

V. Legal Compliance, Restrictions, and Enforcement

5.1 Non-Endorsement and Warranty Preservation

Licensees must strictly adhere to the non-endorsement clause of the GFDL. This prohibits the use of the names of the original author(s) or publisher(s) to imply or assert endorsement of any Modified Version. This protection is vital for original artists, ensuring their professional identity is not mistakenly associated with derivative works that may vary significantly from their original intent or context.

Furthermore, licensees are required to preserve any Warranty Disclaimers provided with the original document. The GFDL, like most free software licenses, provides the documentation "as is" and disclaims warranties. Preservation of these disclaimers ensures that re-users understand they rely on the information at their own risk.

5.2 Irrevocability of the License

The GFDL 1.3 or later license is perpetual and non-revocable. Once an artist licenses their documentation to the MMC under these terms, that content is irrevocably committed to the public domain under the license conditions. The artist cannot later revoke the license, even if they choose to cease contributing to the platform.

Conclusions and Policy Recommendations

The complexity of GFDL 1.3 compliance highlights the legal tension between a license designed for structured technical manuals and its application to dynamic, multi-author wiki environments. While the GFDL ensures the underlying process documentation remains functionally free and modifiable through its Transparent Copy requirements and detailed attribution logging, its compliance mechanisms impose a significant operational burden on licensees, particularly concerning tracking principal authorship and maintaining source accessibility for mass distributions.

Policy Recommendation for Maximum Utility:

Given the mandatory dual-licensing policy adopted by this MMC, the site administration should actively advise licensees to default to the accompanying Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 or 4.0 license for reuse whenever legally applicable, particularly for purely digital distribution. Compliance with CC BY-SA (which requires proper attribution, a source link, and licensing the derivative work under the same terms) is substantially simpler than navigating the GFDL's requirements for listing five principal authors and managing the long-term liability of providing a Transparent Copy. This strategic recommendation optimizes the practical utility and accessibility of the artistic documentation while still maintaining the fundamental copyleft objective shared by both license families.

Mandate for Administrators:

Site administrators must enforce the zero-tolerance policy against Invariant Sections and Cover Texts to ensure content remains eligible for CC BY-SA relicensing. Furthermore, rigorous verification is required for any legacy documentation imported from external sources or licensed under older GFDL versions (1.1 or 1.2) without the crucial "or later" declaration, as such content may be permanently restricted to GFDL-only terms and thus require stricter compliance from licensees.