Re: yet another mass bug filing on GFDL issues ?
Holger Levsen wrote:
> Hm, on a second thought this (*) _might_ be a feature: the GFDL says invariant
> sections need to be listed, but there aren't any, as a template has been
> used. Yay ?!
I suspect that many of those cases might just be an accidental ommission
in the copyright file...
OTOH, it is hillarious that after typing 'info gdb' I was unable to
actually find the statement saying the documentation is under the GFDL;
it appears that the FSF has once again mis-applied their own license...