[rfa] License clarification for observer.texi

[rfa] License clarification for observer.texi

[Daniel Jacobowitz]

One of two issues that I'd like to resolve before GDB 6.5.

This patch adds explicit copyright and license notices to observer.texi,
to resolve a problem noted by debian-legal.

The file is included directly into the manual, so must be covered by the
GFDL.  But the header file generated from it by observer.sh (gdb/observer.h
in the build tree) has a GPL notice added.  The GFDL and GPL are not
compatible to this degree.  Even the FSF agrees about this - the
FDL suggests releasing code fragments under the GPL in parallel to including
them in the manual.

So, this patch marks observer.texi as distributable under both licenses.

Does anyone disapprove of this change?  Or, feel sufficiently concerned by
it that you would prefer I contact the FSF to confirm?  I don't feel that it
is necessary, since I am dealing strictly with the FSF's preferred licenses
for code and for manuals, and strictly for manual already used as code.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery

2006-05-05  Daniel Jacobowitz  <dan@codesourcery.com>

	* observer.texi: Add a copyright and license notice.

Index: gdb/doc/observer.texi
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/src/src/gdb/doc/observer.texi,v
retrieving revision 1.10
diff -u -p -r1.10 observer.texi
--- gdb/doc/observer.texi	8 Mar 2005 04:34:43 -0000	1.10
+++ gdb/doc/observer.texi	8 May 2006 20:59:32 -0000
@@ -1,4 +1,27 @@
 @c -*-texinfo-*-
+
+@c This file is part of the GDB manual.
+
+@c Copyright (C) 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006
+@c               Free Software Foundation, Inc.
+
+@c Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document
+@c under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.1 or
+@c any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with the
+@c Invariant Sections being ``Free Software'' and ``Free Software Needs
+@c Free Documentation'', with the Front-Cover Texts being ``A GNU Manual,''
+@c and with the Back-Cover Texts as in (a) below.
+
+@c (a) The Free Software Foundation's Back-Cover Text is: ``You have
+@c freedom to copy and modify this GNU Manual, like GNU software.  Copies
+@c published by the Free Software Foundation raise funds for GNU
+@c development.''
+
+@c Permission is also granted to redistribute and/or modify this file
+@c under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
+@c the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or
+@c (at your option) any later version.
+
 @node GDB Observers
 @appendix @value{GDBN} Currently available observers
 

Re: [rfa] License clarification for observer.texi

[Eli Zaretskii]

> Date: Mon, 8 May 2006 17:04:40 -0400
> From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>
> 
> The file is included directly into the manual, so must be covered by the
> GFDL.  But the header file generated from it by observer.sh (gdb/observer.h
> in the build tree) has a GPL notice added.  The GFDL and GPL are not
> compatible to this degree.  Even the FSF agrees about this - the
> FDL suggests releasing code fragments under the GPL in parallel to including
> them in the manual.
> 
> So, this patch marks observer.texi as distributable under both licenses.

Perhaps I'm missing something, but I don't see any need to do this.
observer.sh already puts a GPL blurb into observer.h, so why would we
need to add GPL to observer.texi?  There's no real code in the
portions extracted to observer.h to justify any level of bother, IMO.

What were the problems raised on debian-legal, and did they consult
the FSF?

> Does anyone disapprove of this change?  Or, feel sufficiently concerned by
> it that you would prefer I contact the FSF to confirm?  I don't feel that it
> is necessary, since I am dealing strictly with the FSF's preferred licenses
> for code and for manuals, and strictly for manual already used as code.

If the two licenses are incompatible, how do we know we can distribute
a file under both of them?

Re: [rfa] License clarification for observer.texi

[Daniel Jacobowitz]

On Tue, May 09, 2006 at 12:19:20AM +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > Date: Mon, 8 May 2006 17:04:40 -0400
> > From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>
> > 
> > The file is included directly into the manual, so must be covered by the
> > GFDL.  But the header file generated from it by observer.sh (gdb/observer.h
> > in the build tree) has a GPL notice added.  The GFDL and GPL are not
> > compatible to this degree.  Even the FSF agrees about this - the
> > FDL suggests releasing code fragments under the GPL in parallel to including
> > them in the manual.
> > 
> > So, this patch marks observer.texi as distributable under both licenses.
> 
> Perhaps I'm missing something, but I don't see any need to do this.
> observer.sh already puts a GPL blurb into observer.h, so why would we
> need to add GPL to observer.texi?  There's no real code in the
> portions extracted to observer.h to justify any level of bother, IMO.
> 
> What were the problems raised on debian-legal, and did they consult
> the FSF?

The problem was that the code generated by observer.sh is based on the
input file observer.texi.  I remember reading RMS's position on a
similar case recently; tools which process input files into source
code are encouraged to go a step beyond what I implemented, and
actually pass the license of the input file through to the output file.
For instance, flex does this.

[Bison is a bit of a different story.  It includes its own copyright,
because the skeleton is non-trivial.  You can also pass a copyright
notice through, all though GDB doesn't - just include it in %{}.]

For reasons I really am not interested in discussing (because I think
the entire affair is very unfortunate, and I don't agree with the
changes - but it is my responsibility to honor the project's decision),
Debian no longer permits the distribution of FDL'd works in the "main"
distribution.  This means that I must separate the GDB tarball into two
parts, one suitable for "main" and the other suitable for the
"non-free" distribution.  I am not permitted to include GFDL
documentation in the main tarball, but I must include observers.texi,
in order to build GDB.

(Or regenerate the observers list without using observers.texi, which I
could certainly do, but I think is silly.)

As an aside, one reason it's taken me so long to do this is that I
refuse to take the easy way out and just not ship the manual.  I
use it every day; even if Debian users have to dig a little deeper to
find a copy, I will make sure one is available.

I'd rather do nothing at all, but I don't seem to have that option.

> > Does anyone disapprove of this change?  Or, feel sufficiently concerned by
> > it that you would prefer I contact the FSF to confirm?  I don't feel that it
> > is necessary, since I am dealing strictly with the FSF's preferred licenses
> > for code and for manuals, and strictly for manual already used as code.
> 
> If the two licenses are incompatible, how do we know we can distribute
> a file under both of them?

As the copyright holder, the FSF can give permission to distribute it
under any license or set of licenses.  "Incompatible" only means that
data covered under one license can not be automatically included in a
work covered by the other license - you get to choose one of a set of
licenses at a time when using the licensed work.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery

Re: [rfa] License clarification for observer.texi

[Eli Zaretskii]

> Date: Mon, 8 May 2006 18:18:35 -0400
> From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>
> Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
> 
> Debian no longer permits the distribution of FDL'd works in the "main"
> distribution.

Ah, it's _that_ issue.

> I am not permitted to include GFDL documentation in the main
> tarball, but I must include observers.texi, in order to build GDB.

Why can't you simply include the generated observers.h in the main
tarball?  It has the right license.

Anyway, I'm uneasy about making such a change because of the Debian's
controversy.  When faced with issues like this (i.e. the same source
that is used to produce both code and documentation), RMS always said
that in practice this isn't a problem, since either the produced docs
or the produced code is of insignificant amount.  So if distributing
observers.h is somehow not an option, I think we should ask Richard
for guidance.

Re: [rfa] License clarification for observer.texi

[Daniel Jacobowitz]

On Tue, May 09, 2006 at 06:32:42AM +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > Date: Mon, 8 May 2006 18:18:35 -0400
> > From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>
> > Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
> > 
> > Debian no longer permits the distribution of FDL'd works in the "main"
> > distribution.
> 
> Ah, it's _that_ issue.
> 
> > I am not permitted to include GFDL documentation in the main
> > tarball, but I must include observers.texi, in order to build GDB.
> 
> Why can't you simply include the generated observers.h in the main
> tarball?  It has the right license.

Because that would, in my opinion, violate at least the spirit of the
GPL.  "Preferred source for modification" is not that file, but the
manual.

> Anyway, I'm uneasy about making such a change because of the Debian's
> controversy.  When faced with issues like this (i.e. the same source
> that is used to produce both code and documentation), RMS always said
> that in practice this isn't a problem, since either the produced docs
> or the produced code is of insignificant amount.  So if distributing
> observers.h is somehow not an option, I think we should ask Richard
> for guidance.

I suppose I will have to do that, then.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery

Re: [rfa] License clarification for observer.texi

[Eli Zaretskii]

> Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 00:05:45 -0400
> From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>
> 
> > > I am not permitted to include GFDL documentation in the main
> > > tarball, but I must include observers.texi, in order to build GDB.
> > 
> > Why can't you simply include the generated observers.h in the main
> > tarball?  It has the right license.
> 
> Because that would, in my opinion, violate at least the spirit of the
> GPL.  "Preferred source for modification" is not that file, but the
> manual.

I don't see how it would violate the spirit of the GPL.  That spirit
is, in a nutshell, to let users have full freedom to modify the
program.  By distributing observers.h you don't hamper that freedom in
any way.

Re: [rfa] License clarification for observer.texi

[Daniel Jacobowitz]

On Tue, May 09, 2006 at 09:53:50PM +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 00:05:45 -0400
> > From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>
> > 
> > > > I am not permitted to include GFDL documentation in the main
> > > > tarball, but I must include observers.texi, in order to build GDB.
> > > 
> > > Why can't you simply include the generated observers.h in the main
> > > tarball?  It has the right license.
> > 
> > Because that would, in my opinion, violate at least the spirit of the
> > GPL.  "Preferred source for modification" is not that file, but the
> > manual.
> 
> I don't see how it would violate the spirit of the GPL.  That spirit
> is, in a nutshell, to let users have full freedom to modify the
> program.  By distributing observers.h you don't hamper that freedom in
> any way.

Different part of the freedom.  Section 3:

===

    a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable
    source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections
    1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,

The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for
making modifications to it.  For an executable work, complete source
code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any
associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to
control compilation and installation of the executable.

===

observers.h is not "source code" according to this definition; we
_require_ contributors to modify observers.texi, so that new observers
are documented, therefore it is not the preferred form. Distributing
the header without distributiong observers.texi would violate this
paragraph.  I think that's what it says, anyway.

Maybe this is "letter" rather than "spirit".

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery

Re: [rfa] License clarification for observer.texi

[Eli Zaretskii]

> Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 15:03:46 -0400
> From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>
> 
> Maybe this is "letter" rather than "spirit".

Yes, it is.  This text simply tries to define the meaning of ``source
code'', so as to prevent a situation where what is distributed is
incomplete and doesn't allow one to modify and rebuild.

But there's nothing wrong, AFAIU, in distributing a derived file.  We
already do that, e.g., with Makefile.in that is produced from
Makefile.am.

Re: [rfa] License clarification for observer.texi

[Daniel Jacobowitz]

On Tue, May 09, 2006 at 10:29:39PM +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 15:03:46 -0400
> > From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>
> > 
> > Maybe this is "letter" rather than "spirit".
> 
> Yes, it is.  This text simply tries to define the meaning of ``source
> code'', so as to prevent a situation where what is distributed is
> incomplete and doesn't allow one to modify and rebuild.
> 
> But there's nothing wrong, AFAIU, in distributing a derived file.  We
> already do that, e.g., with Makefile.in that is produced from
> Makefile.am.

You're right.  As long as you also distribute Makefile.am, it's fine.
So this is not your problem at all, but solely mine (that I'm trying
to solve) - it's a problem if I can't distribute observers.texi.

Anyway, digression over.  I will consult with the FSF, once I figure
out what to ask them.  Thanks for the feedback.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery

Re: [rfa] License clarification for observer.texi

[Daniel Jacobowitz]

On Tue, May 09, 2006 at 06:32:42AM +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> Anyway, I'm uneasy about making such a change because of the Debian's
> controversy.  When faced with issues like this (i.e. the same source
> that is used to produce both code and documentation), RMS always said
> that in practice this isn't a problem, since either the produced docs
> or the produced code is of insignificant amount.  So if distributing
> observers.h is somehow not an option, I think we should ask Richard
> for guidance.

Hi Eli,

Before I go ahead and do that, here's one other alternative.  From
maintain.texi:

  Small supporting files, short manuals (under 300 lines long) and rough
  documentation (README files, INSTALL files, etc) can use a simple
  all-permissive license like this one:

     Copying and distribution of this file, with or without modification,
     are permitted in any medium without royalty provided the copyright
     notice and this notice are preserved.

I think this applies to observers.texi; how about you?

If you'd prefer it to be covered by the GFDL, I'll inquire with the FSF.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery

Re: [rfa] License clarification for observer.texi

[Eli Zaretskii]

> Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 08:59:22 -0400
> From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>
> 
>   Small supporting files, short manuals (under 300 lines long) and rough
>   documentation (README files, INSTALL files, etc) can use a simple
>   all-permissive license like this one:
> 
>      Copying and distribution of this file, with or without modification,
>      are permitted in any medium without royalty provided the copyright
>      notice and this notice are preserved.
> 
> I think this applies to observers.texi; how about you?

It is certainly shorter than 300 lines, so it sounds like it's okay to
release it under the simplified license.

> If you'd prefer it to be covered by the GFDL, I'll inquire with the FSF.

I think only the full manual needs to be covered by the GFDL.

But even though I'm okay with this change, I think we should ask the
FSF regardless, since strictly speaking this change is for Debian's
sake, and not to pursue some FSF goal.  That is, we in effect want to
change the license to cater to someone else's goals.  I think it's
only fair to ask the FSF before we do it.

Re: [rfa] License clarification for observer.texi

[Daniel Jacobowitz]

On Tue, May 09, 2006 at 10:16:11PM +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> But even though I'm okay with this change, I think we should ask the
> FSF regardless, since strictly speaking this change is for Debian's
> sake, and not to pursue some FSF goal.  That is, we in effect want to
> change the license to cater to someone else's goals.  I think it's
> only fair to ask the FSF before we do it.

Debian's position is that the current state of affairs is simply
invalid - that GDB can not be legally distributed without fixing
it.  That's slightly orthogonal to fixing the FDL issue, in that they
would hammer me about fixing it even if I could leave the FDL manuals
in the package.

I'm not sure what I need to ask the FSF now?  I'd like to set the
license on the file to one which is (A) acceptable to the FSF, (B)
legally valid to include in the manual, and (C) legally valid to link
with GDB - that's pretty unambiguous and I think we've found such a
license.  But it's unrelated to needing to ship GDB without GFDL'd
files, which I do.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery

Re: [rfa] License clarification for observer.texi

[Eli Zaretskii]

> Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 15:27:21 -0400
> From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>
> 
> I'm not sure what I need to ask the FSF now?

I suggest to ask whether it is okay to add to observers.texi the
simplified copyright blurb.  This is not a trivial question, since
observers.texi is covered by the GFDL license of the manual (see
below).

> I'd like to set the
> license on the file to one which is (A) acceptable to the FSF, (B)
> legally valid to include in the manual, and (C) legally valid to link
> with GDB - that's pretty unambiguous and I think we've found such a
> license.

Yes, we both agree that it is probably okay to make this change.
However, we are changing the distribution copyright of observers.texi
not only for the Debian distro, but for the FSF distro as well.  Since
the FSF is the copyright holder, I don't think we can change the
copyright without their consent, even if it's perfectly legal.

Btw, it may be that the current form of observers.texi is not legally
safe, either, since it currently has no copyright blurb at all.  By
contrast, the *.texi files that comprise the Emacs manual each have
the following text at their beginning:

    @c This is part of the Emacs manual.
    @c Copyright (C) 1985, 1986, 1987, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1997, 1999, 2000,
    @c   2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
    @c See file emacs.texi for copying conditions.

and the full copyright is in emacs.texi.

Re: [rfa] License clarification for observer.texi

[Daniel Jacobowitz]

On Tue, May 09, 2006 at 11:28:56PM +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> Btw, it may be that the current form of observers.texi is not legally
> safe, either, since it currently has no copyright blurb at all.

Yes, the report I received (from Nathaniel) pointed this out; sorry if
I was unclear about that.  This is not the only file in doc/ with
a similar problem; I was just fixing this one, since I had other
business here at the same time.

Would you like me to add copyright and license notices to all the other
files which go into the GDB manual, referring to gdb.texinfo for
copying conditions?  I can take care of that afterwards.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery

Re: [rfa] License clarification for observer.texi

[Eli Zaretskii]

> Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 16:34:43 -0400
> From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>
> 
> Would you like me to add copyright and license notices to all the other
> files which go into the GDB manual, referring to gdb.texinfo for
> copying conditions?

In general yes, but what other files are there?

Re: [rfa] License clarification for observer.texi

[Daniel Jacobowitz]

On Wed, May 10, 2006 at 06:23:35AM +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 16:34:43 -0400
> > From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>
> > 
> > Would you like me to add copyright and license notices to all the other
> > files which go into the GDB manual, referring to gdb.texinfo for
> > copying conditions?
> 
> In general yes, but what other files are there?

agentexpr.texi appears to be the only other one which lacks a copyright
notice; I thought there were more, but I happened to pick the only two
with problems.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery

Re: [rfa] License clarification for observer.texi

[Eli Zaretskii]

> Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 23:52:45 -0400
> From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>
> 
> On Wed, May 10, 2006 at 06:23:35AM +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > > Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 16:34:43 -0400
> > > From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>
> > > 
> > > Would you like me to add copyright and license notices to all the other
> > > files which go into the GDB manual, referring to gdb.texinfo for
> > > copying conditions?
> > 
> > In general yes, but what other files are there?
> 
> agentexpr.texi appears to be the only other one which lacks a copyright
> notice

You are right (I somehow thought we no longer include that in the
manual, but I was wrong).  We do need to add the copyright notice to
it.  I suggest to use the wording the Emacs distribution uses for
files @included by emacs.texi.

Re: [rfa] License clarification for observer.texi

[Daniel Jacobowitz]

On Tue, May 09, 2006 at 11:28:56PM +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 15:27:21 -0400
> > From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>
> > 
> > I'm not sure what I need to ask the FSF now?
> 
> I suggest to ask whether it is okay to add to observers.texi the
> simplified copyright blurb.  This is not a trivial question, since
> observers.texi is covered by the GFDL license of the manual (see
> below).

Thank you for your help and patience.  I've sent a question to the FSF;
I'll let you know what I hear from them.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery

Re: [rfa] License clarification for observer.texi

[Daniel Jacobowitz]

On Mon, May 08, 2006 at 05:04:40PM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> Does anyone disapprove of this change?  Or, feel sufficiently concerned by
> it that you would prefer I contact the FSF to confirm?  I don't feel that it
> is necessary, since I am dealing strictly with the FSF's preferred licenses
> for code and for manuals, and strictly for manual already used as code.

Just as well that Eli asked me to consult with the FSF.  They prefer
something (marginally) less permissive.  Here is the conclusion I
reached with Dave Turner (who answers licensing@gnu.org).  I also added
a notice to agentexpr.texi which redirects to the main manual, i.e. the
GFDL.

Eli, does this look good to you?

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery

2006-05-10  Daniel Jacobowitz  <dan@codesourcery.com>

	* agentexpr.texi: Add a copyright and license notice.
	* observer.texi: Likewise, with GPL clause for function prototypes.
	Remove trailing whitespace.

Index: agentexpr.texi
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/src/src/gdb/doc/agentexpr.texi,v
retrieving revision 1.5
diff -u -p -r1.5 agentexpr.texi
--- agentexpr.texi	4 Aug 2003 20:43:57 -0000	1.5
+++ agentexpr.texi	10 May 2006 14:55:49 -0000
@@ -5,6 +5,13 @@
 @c @setchapternewpage off
 @c %**end of header
 
+@c This file is part of the GDB manual.
+@c
+@c Copyright (C) 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006
+@c               Free Software Foundation, Inc.
+@c
+@c See the file gdb.texinfo for copying conditions.
+
 @c Revision: $Id: agentexpr.texi,v 1.2 1998/12/09 21:23:46 jimb Exp $
 
 @node Agent Expressions
Index: observer.texi
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/src/src/gdb/doc/observer.texi,v
retrieving revision 1.10
diff -u -p -r1.10 observer.texi
--- observer.texi	8 Mar 2005 04:34:43 -0000	1.10
+++ observer.texi	10 May 2006 14:55:49 -0000
@@ -1,4 +1,19 @@
 @c -*-texinfo-*-
+
+@c This file is part of the GDB manual.
+@c
+@c Copyright (C) 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006
+@c               Free Software Foundation, Inc.
+@c
+@c See the file gdbint.texinfo for copying conditions.
+@c
+@c Also, the @deftypefun lines from this file are processed into a
+@c header file during the GDB build process.  Permission is granted
+@c to redistribute and/or modify those lines under the terms of the
+@c GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software
+@c Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (at your option)
+@c any later version.
+
 @node GDB Observers
 @appendix @value{GDBN} Currently available observers
 
@@ -47,7 +62,7 @@ internal happenings, gdb, Debugging with
 @value{GDBN} notifies all @code{normal_stop} observers when the
 inferior execution has just stopped, the associated messages and
 annotations have been printed, and the control is about to be returned
-to the user. 
+to the user.
 
 Note that the @code{normal_stop} notification is not emitted when
 the execution stops due to a breakpoint, and this breakpoint has

Re: [rfa] License clarification for observer.texi

[Eli Zaretskii]

> Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 10:59:04 -0400
> From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>
> 
> Just as well that Eli asked me to consult with the FSF.  They prefer
> something (marginally) less permissive.  Here is the conclusion I
> reached with Dave Turner (who answers licensing@gnu.org).  I also added
> a notice to agentexpr.texi which redirects to the main manual, i.e. the
> GFDL.
> 
> Eli, does this look good to you?

Yes, thanks.

Re: [rfa] License clarification for observer.texi

[Daniel Jacobowitz]

On Wed, May 10, 2006 at 09:10:27PM +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 10:59:04 -0400
> > From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>
> > 
> > Just as well that Eli asked me to consult with the FSF.  They prefer
> > something (marginally) less permissive.  Here is the conclusion I
> > reached with Dave Turner (who answers licensing@gnu.org).  I also added
> > a notice to agentexpr.texi which redirects to the main manual, i.e. the
> > GFDL.
> > 
> > Eli, does this look good to you?
> 
> Yes, thanks.

Thank you, also.  Now committed.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery