Re: Practical problems with the GFDL
barbier@linuxfr.org (Denis Barbier) writes:
> a) Copyright notices
>
> Most Debian packages with GFDL documentation do not mention in
> /usr/share/doc/<package>/copyright that their manual is not released under
> the GNU GPL, but the GFDL.
> It would be nice if they did, with a list of invariant sections, front-cover
> and back-cover texts, and with the text of the GFDL.
Yes, they should do this. Any that you know of, the appropriate thing
to do is to file bugs in the BTS on such packages.
> b) Copying in Quantity
>
> GFDL states:
> If you publish or distribute Opaque copies of the Document numbering
> more than 100, you must either include a machine-readable Transparent
> copy along with each Opaque copy, or state in or with each Opaque copy
> a publicly-accessible computer-network location containing a complete
> Transparent copy of the Document, free of added material, which the
> general network-using public has access to download anonymously at no
> charge using public-standard network protocols.
>
> As wording differs from GPL clause 3, I have no clue on how to interpret this
> paragraph. We distribute manuals in info format, which is surely Opaque, so
> do we satisfy the first or second conditions?
But we also distribute the Transparent copy (texinfo). If the manual
was originally written in info format, then that would be the
Transparent form. If the package includes foo.texinfo in the binary
package, then it conforms to the first condition; because the source
package is always available, we conform to the second.
> c) GDB Invariant Sections
>
> IIRC, Thomas Bushnell said he will ask why GDB's manual contains an invariant
> section which does not seem to fit invariant sections' criterion.
> Did I miss his answer?
RMS agreed that they shouldn't be invariant, and said he'd speak to
the GDB maintainer. I haven't heard back from him. I'll ask him
again.
Thomas
Reply to: