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

Re: GCC's manpage refers to sections that aren't in the manpage

On Sun, 6 May 2007, Zack Weinberg wrote:

> On 5/6/07, MJ Ray <mjr@phonecoop.coop> wrote:
> > Zack Weinberg <zackw@panix.com> wrote:
> > > GCC's manpages are mechanically generated from its info files.  We
> > > asked the FSF how to apply the GFDL and were told that the *entire
> > > collection of manpages* counted as the Work, so it was okay to put the
> > > Invariant Sections in separate manpages.  See
> > > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2001-11/msg00311.html et seq. [...]
> > 
> > Do the gcc man pages now make it clear that the entire collection of
> > manuals are the work and say which other man pages contain the Invariant
> > Sections and the License?
> I know they contain cross-references to the other man pages, I'm not
> sure how clear they make it that the entire collection is the work.
> Joseph Myers is the person to ask; I've cc:ed him.

I followed the advice given in the message referenced above.  I don't 
think the GFDL addresses how you define the whole work, but I don't see a 
set of manpages as substantially different from a set of HTML files; 
there, makeinfo puts the @copying information into a comment in each file, 
but the GFDL text and Invariant Sections themselves don't go in every 
file.  I presume this conforms to the FSF understanding of the 
requirements, given Texinfo's NEWS file:


	As of version 4.2, Texinfo has a new command @copying to define the
	copyright and copying permissions for a manual.  It's important to
	switch to using it as soon as possible (as in your next release),
	because the historical method of doing copyright permissions using
	@ifinfo failed to output copyright information in the HTML (or XML)

> > I dislike the FDL because of all these complexities and stange interactions
> > when an FDL'd manual accompanies GPL'd software.  GPL the manuals!
> I entirely agree with you, but the GCC steering committee is of the
> opinion that there is no chance of persuading RMS to sign off on it.
> [I do not know whether they ever tried, but I think they're right.
> Joseph, again, might know more.]

I'd be glad if the FSF would simply move to the GSFDL when it comes out, 
but I have no hope of that either.  The most I might hope for is getting a 
statement regarding moving text between manuals and doc strings extracted 
from source code.

If RMS however wishes to get the new invariant section "Free Software and 
Free Manuals" (from the last printed edition of the GCC manual) added to 
the development versions of the GCC manual, he's listed as having Write 
After Approval access and can submit a patch for that himself; as I said 
at <http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13573#c8> I have no 
interest in merging that particular change.

Joseph S. Myers

Reply to: