[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > The source of the manual (the .texi file) is under the same license as > the rest of the package, which is the one in the file "COPYING".
| GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE | TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR COPYING, DISTRIBUTION AND MODIFICATION | | 0. This License applies to any program or other work which contains | a notice placed by the copyright holder saying it may be distributed | under the terms of this General Public License. The .texi file contains no such notice. To the extent that the manual can be considered a separate work (which many manuals can; good manuals are often not written by those who write the code) there is no implicit reason to expect the GPL to cover the manual, especially not given the facts that 1. The manual (either as .texi file or in hardcopy) itself contains independent, self-contained language that describe the copying terms. There is no logical need for it to be supplemented by the GPL. 2. The main feature of the GPL are mechanisms to ensure that "the preferred form for making modifications to the work" will always be available to everyone who gets a copy. The license in the manual explicitly allows distribution of hardcopies without also distributing the .texi source. 3. Every other source file in the package does contain comments with explicit references to the GPL. Additionally, in the RMS article you referred to in your later post, the following section appears: | ... It is also no problem to ... have entire sections that may not be | deleted or changed, as long as these sections deal with nontechnical | topics. (Some GNU manuals have them.) Those manuals cannot be covered by the GPL, because the GPL allows one to change *everything*. -- Henning Makholm
