Bug#388246: Is the application of the GFDL to the gcc manpage a GNU or a Debian decision?
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. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#388246: Is the application of the GFDL to the gcc manpage a GNU or a Debian decision?
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. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#388246: Is the application of the GFDL to the gcc manpage a GNU or a Debian decision?
Sorry I don't think I highlighted the bit I meant. On Fri, May 11, 2007 at 02:28:06PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote: ware Foundation; with the Invariant Sections being GNU General Public License and Funding Free Software, How can Funding Free Software be an invariant section of the GCC manual page, when it isn't included? -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#388246: Is the application of the GFDL to the gcc manpage a GNU or a Debian decision?
On Fri, May 11, 2007 at 02:38:57PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote: Daniel Jacobowitz writes: Sorry I don't think I highlighted the bit I meant. On Fri, May 11, 2007 at 02:28:06PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote: ware Foundation; with the Invariant Sections being GNU General Public License and Funding Free Software, How can Funding Free Software be an invariant section of the GCC manual page, when it isn't included? it is splitted out into its own manual page fsf-funding(7); I'll prepare a patch for upstream to clarify that. Oh! Thanks. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#388246: Is the application of the GFDL to the gcc manpage a GNU or a Debian decision?
The license information in the GCC manpage at the bottom is decidedly weird. It refers to invariant sections that can't be found in the GCC manpage. On this topic, I have emailed debian-legal, to this effect: On 03/05/07, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jordi Gutierrez Hermoso [EMAIL PROTECTED] I'm rather confused. The GCC maintainers put the manpage in non-free along with the rest of the GCC docs. The manpage says at the bottom that it's covered by the GFDL and mentions invariant sections that aren't in the manpage. Huh? What does this mean as far as the location of the manpage and the GFDL/Debian fiasco? It probably means that the GCC maintainers have misused the FDL by accident, similar to the GDB maintainers in the past. I feel putting a manpage under the FDL is stupid because then the manpage has to include a copy of the FDL, which is far longer than a typical manpage. This may be related to bug 412272 or bug 388246 Please report a bug against gcc-doc (or gcc?) if you agree that non-inclusion of the FDL means that the man page is undistributable. If you would like to take it further, please research whether the GCC maintainers know that using the FDL for a manpage has problems. Some GNU projects use info files, so maybe the manpage in non-free was not made by them - in which case, it says nothing about the GNU FDL fiasco. If it is their man page, then it means yet another mature GNU project has been confused by the FDL. Hope that helps, 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. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
