Bug#388246: Is the application of the GFDL to the gcc manpage a GNU or a Debian decision?

[Matthias Klose <doko@cs.tu-berlin.de>]

Daniel Jacobowitz writes:
> On Fri, May 11, 2007 at 02:16:28PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > Daniel Jacobowitz writes:
> > > On Thu, May 03, 2007 at 02:06:38PM -0500, Jordi Gutierrez Hermoso wrote:
> > > > So what, exactly, is the status of the GFDL and GCC's manpage? I still
> > > > insist that no GCC manpage is a serious policy violation, especially
> > > > considering the importance of a package like GCC.
> > > 
> > > The man page is generated from the Texinfo documentation.  Accordingly
> > > it is covered by the same license.  I don't know what the status of
> > > invariant sections in it is.
> > 
> > same as for the texinfo docs.
> 
> Can't be:
> 
>        Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this
>        document under the terms of the
>        GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later
>        version published by the Free Soft-
>        ware Foundation; with the Invariant Sections being "GNU General
>        Public License" and "Funding
>        Free Software", the Front-Cover texts being (a) (see below),
>        and with the Back-Cover Texts
>        being (b) (see below).  A copy of the license is included in
>        the gfdl(7) man page.
> 
> but they aren't in the man page at all.

The gpl(7) and gfdl(7) man pages were installed from the gcc-defaults
package, removed while removing the docs from the gcc sources. AFAICS
this is the same wording as for the texinfo docs.