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. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]