Matthias Klose wrote: >> I will state explicitly up front a few topics I am not raising, because >> I do not think they are either necessary, or likely to be productive: >> >> * Whether or not the GFDL is a "free" license, or whether it's a good >> license, or anything else about its merits or lack thereof > > Maybe, but GFDL is not GFDL. Please could you clarify if such > documentation is licensed under a GFDL with frontcover/backcover texts > and/or invariant sections?
GCC's current documentation does have some of these things on at least some manuals. > Would any of these clauses even make sense > for this kind of documentation? To the extent that we'd be auto-generating parts of existing manuals, I think such sections make as much sense as they do now. For example, were we to auto-generate a list of command-line options for the main GCC manual, replacing the current hand-generated list, there would be no reason to change any of the invariant sections, etc. For API documentation, or, in general, for new manuals, I have no opinion. My guess, though, is that the FSF would want the same invariant sections and such as are on the existing manuals. (If it were up to me, manuals would just be GPL, whether or not that's a great license for documentation. But, it's not up to me.) -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery m...@codesourcery.com (650) 331-3385 x713
