[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       debian-devel
Subject:    Re: yet another mass bug filing on GFDL issues ?
From:       Daniel Jacobowitz <dan () debian ! org>
Date:       2006-01-22 17:27:17
Message-ID: 20060122172717.GA25552 () nevyn ! them ! org
[Download RAW message or body]

On Sun, Jan 22, 2006 at 09:58:58AM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> Holger Levsen wrote:
> 
> > Hm, on a second thought this (*) _might_ be a feature: the GFDL says invariant 
> > sections need to be listed, but there aren't any, as a template has been 
> > used. Yay ?!
> 
> I suspect that many of those cases might just be an accidental ommission
> in the copyright file...
> 
> OTOH, it is hillarious that after typing 'info gdb' I was unable to
> actually find the statement saying the documentation is under the GFDL;
> it appears that the FSF has once again mis-applied their own license...

Incorrect.  I clarified this with the GDB documentation expert; for
some reason the license is in the Info file (you can find it with a
text editor) but deliberately does not show up in an Info browser.
Which makes fair sense; normally the license is in the source code,
not in the binary.

  http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb/2005-12/msg00126.html

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]