From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12308 invoked by alias); 11 Dec 2005 04:32:43 -0000 Received: (qmail 12299 invoked by uid 22791); 11 Dec 2005 04:32:43 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from romy.inter.net.il (HELO romy.inter.net.il) (192.114.186.66) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Sun, 11 Dec 2005 04:32:42 +0000 Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 (IGLD-80-230-81-70.inter.net.il [80.230.81.70]) by romy.inter.net.il (MOS 3.7.2-GA) with ESMTP id DDN29723 (AUTH halo1); Sun, 11 Dec 2005 06:32:37 +0200 (IST) Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 04:32:00 -0000 Message-Id: From: Eli Zaretskii To: gdb@sourceware.org In-reply-to: <20051211035217.GA15798@nevyn.them.org> (message from Daniel Jacobowitz on Sat, 10 Dec 2005 22:52:17 -0500) Subject: Re: Where in the (info) manual is the license statement supposed to go? Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: <20051210014001.GA28253@nevyn.them.org> <20051211035217.GA15798@nevyn.them.org> X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2005-12/txt/msg00126.txt.bz2 > Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 22:52:17 -0500 > From: 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. 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.