[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: old and new GNU documentation licenses, and the some of the manuals to which they apply



On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 04:03:17PM +0300, Richard Braakman wrote:
> I also find it hard to bend my mind in such a way that a copy of the
> GPL is a section that "deals exclusively with the relationship of the
> publishers or authors of the Document to the Document's overall
> subject (or to related matters)".  How is this a Secondary Section?
> 
> (Here's a test: after gawk moves to GPLv3, is it important to keep
> a copy of the GPLv2 in the documentation?  Would you add the GPLv3
> as an Invariant Section?  If so, why?)

You may want to send these questions to RMS.  He is not subscribed to
-legal, as far as I know.

On the other hand, there is sometimes a downside to mailing RMS
questions.  :)

-- 
G. Branden Robinson                |    Damnit, we're all going to die;
Debian GNU/Linux                   |    let's die doing something *useful*!
branden@debian.org                 |    -- Hal Clement, on comments that
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |       space exploration is dangerous

Attachment: pgpfo600BYIg5.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: