{"id":"GFDL-1.3-no-invariants-or-later","title":"GNU Free Documentation License v1.3 or later - no invariants","reviewed_on":"2026-09-22","reviewer":"Giray Havur","text_source":"https://raw.githubusercontent.com/spdx/license-list-data/main/text/GFDL-1.3-no-invariants-or-later.txt","text_retrieved":true,"verdict":"created","summary":"The record models the or-later reading of version 1.3 of the GNU Free Documentation License for a document that has no Invariant Sections. The legal text is the same document as version 1.3, so the record copies GnuFreeDocumentationLicense statement for statement and sets dalicc:orLaterVersionOption true, dalicc:variantKind \"version-option\" and dalicc:variantOf. What the identifier adds is a fact about the document, not about the license, and the model cannot yet express it.","findings":[{"rubric":1,"severity":"info","field":"spdx:licenseId","description":"File name, identifier, SPDX identifier and the local name of the IRI are the same string, GFDL-1.3-no-invariants-or-later. SPDX added the invariants and no-invariants identifiers so that a document that designates Invariant Sections can be told apart from one that does not. The legal text behind all four version 1.3 identifiers is one and the same document.","action":"applied"},{"rubric":2,"severity":"info","field":"odrl:target","description":"The odrl:target of GnuFreeDocumentationLicense is copied unchanged: one odrl:AssetCollection of dct:type dalicc:CreativeWork and dcmitype:Software. The review of the base record proposes dcmitype:Text in place of dcmitype:Software; that proposal covers this record too.","action":"applied"},{"rubric":3,"severity":"major","field":"dalicc:orLaterVersionOption","description":"Section 10 states: \"If the Document specifies that a particular numbered version of this License \"or any later version\" applies to it, you have the option of following the terms and conditions either of that specified version or of any later version that has been published (not as a draft) by the Free Software Foundation.\" Version 1.3 adds: \"If the Document specifies that a proxy can decide which future versions of this License can be used, that proxy's public statement of acceptance of a version permanently authorizes you to choose that version for the Document.\" Those sentences are why dalicc:orLaterVersionOption is true here. They are not quoted in dalicc:additionalClauses, because the base record carries no dalicc:additionalClauses at all and an or-later record keeps the clause literals of its base.","action":"applied"},{"rubric":3,"severity":"info","field":"odrl:permission","description":"Every permission of GnuFreeDocumentationLicense is copied with the same duties in the same places: dalicc:chargeDistributionFee, odrl:reproduce, odrl:distribute, odrl:display, odrl:present, odrl:modify, dalicc:ModifiedWorks, odrl:derive, cc:DerivativeWorks and cc:CommercialUse. Taking a later version is a choice about which text applies, not a further permission.","action":"applied"},{"rubric":4,"severity":"info","field":"odrl:prohibition","description":"The two prohibitions of the base record are copied: dalicc:ChangeLicense and dalicc:promote. The records this set adds for versions 1.1 and 1.2 also prohibit dalicc:applyTechnicalProtectionMeasures and dalicc:sublicense, because section 2 states \"You may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the reading or further copying of the copies you make or distribute\" and section 9 states \"You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Document except as expressly provided for under this License\". Version 1.3 carries both sentences as well, but an or-later record may not add a statement its base does not have, so the review proposes the two prohibitions for the base record instead.","action":"applied"},{"rubric":5,"severity":"minor","field":"odrl:duty","description":"The license-wide cc:ShareAlike duty and the duties on distribute, modify and derive are copied node for node, which includes the three duty nodes whose odrl:action is dct:source. dct:source is a Dublin Core property and not an action, so the validator reports it, and cc:SourceCode already sits beside it in each of the three lists. Copying the base exactly is what an or-later record does, so the review proposes removing those duty nodes from all four version 1.3 records in one step rather than dropping them here.","action":"applied"},{"rubric":6,"severity":"info","field":"dalicc:WarrantyDisclaimer","description":"The Warranty Disclaimers paragraph of section 1 is copied verbatim from the base record. The license gives no limitation of liability, so dalicc:LiabilityLimitation is absent, and the base record carries no dalicc:additionalClauses, so this record carries none either.","action":"applied"},{"rubric":7,"severity":"info","field":"cc:jurisdiction","description":"cc:jurisdiction dalicc:worldwide and dalicc:validityType dalicc:perpetual are copied, and so are cc:legalcode and dct:source, which point at the text of the license on the Free Software Foundation site. The base record states no dalicc:terminatesOnBreach although section 9 provides for automatic termination; the review proposes that property for the base record rather than adding it here.","action":"applied"},{"rubric":8,"severity":"gap","field":"dalicc:variantOf","description":"dalicc:variantOf is not defined in the vocabulary yet, so the validator reports it as an undefined DALICC term, and the value \"version-option\" is not in the list of variant kinds the vocabulary comment gives. Both are needed for a record that keeps the text of another record and changes what that text grants or requires.","action":"applied"},{"rubric":8,"severity":"gap","field":"dalicc:additionalClauses","description":"The vocabulary gaps of the base record are inherited: the Invariant Sections, the Cover Texts, the Transparent copy and the History section of sections 3 and 4 have no term, and neither has the relicensing window of section 11. Proposed terms dalicc:invariantSections, dalicc:coverTexts, dalicc:transparentCopy and dalicc:historySection. The base record quotes none of those clauses, so this record quotes none either.","action":"none"},{"rubric":9,"severity":"info","field":"record","description":"The consistency check of app.services.composer with the axioms of dg_default returned an empty conflict list, the same result as for the base record.","action":"none"},{"rubric":8,"severity":"gap","field":"dalicc:variantKind","description":"Nothing in the record says that this identifier is the one for a document without Invariant Sections. Section 1 of version 1.3 allows that state: \"The Document may contain zero Invariant Sections. If the Document does not identify any Invariant Sections then there are none.\" For such a document the preservation duty of section 4 item L has nothing to act on, and a modified version may be relicensed under CC-BY-SA through section 11 if the other conditions there are met. A term proposed as dalicc:invariantSections would let GFDL-1.3-invariants-or-later carry the duty and this record leave it out. Until then the three version 1.3 or-later records hold the same model.","action":"none"},{"rubric":10,"severity":"info","field":"record","description":"Against GnuFreeDocumentationLicense the record differs in the identifier, the SPDX identifier, the title, the alternative names, dalicc:orLaterVersionOption, dalicc:variantKind, the new dalicc:variantOf relation and the review state. Against GFDL-1.3-or-later and GFDL-1.3-invariants-or-later it differs only in those same identification fields, for the reason the rubric 8 finding gives.","action":"applied"}],"family":"GNU copyleft family (GPL, LGPL, AGPL, FDL)","port_of":null,"variant_kind":"version-option","variant_of":"GnuFreeDocumentationLicense","notes":"The SPDX text for GFDL-1.3-no-invariants-or-later has the same checksum as the text for GFDL-1.3-or-later. Section 11 of version 1.3 lets the operator of a massive multiauthor collaboration site republish an eligible collaboration under CC-BY-SA, and one condition of eligibility is that the works had \"no cover texts or invariant sections\"; that window closed on 1 August 2009 and is not modelled."}