On Tue, Sep 11, 2007 at 04:13:21PM +0200, Jens Seidel wrote: > > What I meant is that if you consider license information of any value to > > the reader of the manual page, it should contain a link to the actual > > license text (it can be on the internet as well). In fact, I expect it > > not to add much value at all, and I would have removed it completely. > > But it's up to you, and if you like it better this way, again, it's not > > wrong. > > Still not sure about it. I thought most GPL license statements occur > without a reference to the full license as GPL is very well known. Ok, that makes sense. Forget about the link then. :-) But what remains is that manual pages don't usually contain license information (non-free ones may, I don't know, I don't use them ;-) ). So to put it in there you'd need a reason IMO. People who want to know license information should look in /usr/share/doc/$package/copyright, and not in the manual page. But feel free to disagree. :-) Thanks, Bas -- I encourage people to send encrypted e-mail (see http://www.gnupg.org). If you have problems reading my e-mail, use a better reader. Please send the central message of e-mails as plain text in the message body, not as HTML and definitely not as MS Word. Please do not use the MS Word format for attachments either. For more information, see http://pcbcn10.phys.rug.nl/e-mail.html
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature