Where in the (info) manual is the license statement supposed to go?

Where in the (info) manual is the license statement supposed to go?

[Daniel Jacobowitz]

There are two stanzas in gdb.texinfo talking about the GNU FDL as it
applies to this document (e.g. what the Front-Cover Texts are).  One's
inside @ifinfo at the very beginning and the other's inside @titlepage.

Are these supposed to show up in the Info document?  The @ifinfo one is
included in gdb.info, but in such a way that the info browser never
displays it - it's not in a node.  The @titlepage one is presumably
intended for other forms of manual.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery, LLC

Re: Where in the (info) manual is the license statement supposed to go?

[Eli Zaretskii]

> Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2005 20:40:01 -0500
> From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>
> 
> There are two stanzas in gdb.texinfo talking about the GNU FDL as it
> applies to this document (e.g. what the Front-Cover Texts are).  One's
> inside @ifinfo at the very beginning and the other's inside @titlepage.

That's correct.

> Are these supposed to show up in the Info document?

Not in the parts that the Info reader displays.

> The @ifinfo one is included in gdb.info, but in such a way that the
> info browser never displays it - it's not in a node.

Right, that's how it's supposed to be.

> The @titlepage one is presumably intended for other forms of manual.

Yes, primarily for the printed version.

Why are you asking this?  Is there any specific problem with how
things are currently?  This is how every GNU manual handles the GFDL
mandatory blurbs.

Re: Where in the (info) manual is the license statement supposed to go?

[Daniel Jacobowitz]

On Sun, Dec 11, 2005 at 12:16:09AM +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > Are these supposed to show up in the Info document?
> 
> Not in the parts that the Info reader displays.

OK.  I do find that a bit strange, though.  It's the license of the
document; we include the full text of the FDL as an appendix, but not
the details of how it applies to the manual you're reading.  If I
wanted the licensing terms for an Info manual, Info's where I'd expect
to find them.

I'm fine with my expectations being wrong.

> Why are you asking this?  Is there any specific problem with how
> things are currently?  This is how every GNU manual handles the GFDL
> mandatory blurbs.

Another Debian developer expressed some confusion over the current
situation, in a bug report.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery, LLC

Re: Where in the (info) manual is the license statement supposed to go?

[Eli Zaretskii]

> Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 22:52:17 -0500
> From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>
> 
> On Sun, Dec 11, 2005 at 12:16:09AM +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > > Are these supposed to show up in the Info document?
> > 
> > Not in the parts that the Info reader displays.
> 
> OK.  I do find that a bit strange, though.  It's the license of the
> document; we include the full text of the FDL as an appendix, but not
> the details of how it applies to the manual you're reading.  If I
> wanted the licensing terms for an Info manual, Info's where I'd expect
> to find them.

IANAL, but to me, the fact that we have the terms in the file is
enough.  They are not part of the manual itself.  In a sense, this is
analogous to an executable program: you only see the terms if you
invoke it with a special command-line option.

That said, if you think this is strange, please write to RMS about it.

> > Why are you asking this?  Is there any specific problem with how
> > things are currently?  This is how every GNU manual handles the GFDL
> > mandatory blurbs.
> 
> Another Debian developer expressed some confusion over the current
> situation, in a bug report.

They should talk to RMS.

Re: Where in the (info) manual is the license statement supposed to go?

[Daniel Jacobowitz]

On Sun, Dec 11, 2005 at 06:32:41AM +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> IANAL, but to me, the fact that we have the terms in the file is
> enough.  They are not part of the manual itself.  In a sense, this is
> analogous to an executable program: you only see the terms if you
> invoke it with a special command-line option.

Or "show copying", in the case of GDB - I thought this was mandated by
the GNU standards (maintain.texi) for interactive programs, but I can't
find it now, so it's likely I was imaging it.

> That said, if you think this is strange, please write to RMS about it.

I may do that.  Thanks.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery, LLC