Re: GFDL - status?

2003-07-14 Thread Don Armstrong
On Sun, 13 Jul 2003, MJ Ray wrote: Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Is my license which requires you to buy a jar of pickle relish every time you run the program a free software license? The act of running the program is not restricted by a copyright licence, so would that even be a

GFDL and man pages

2003-07-14 Thread Hans Fugal
I am working on a package (csound) that has no manpages or documentation of any sort (include --help) in the source archive. There is, however, a detailed reference manual[1] with the GFDL license that includes command-line program documentation[2,3]. There are no invariant or cover sections, but

Re: Bug#200411: www.debian.org: confusing description of non-US sections

2003-07-14 Thread Brian M. Carlson
On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 09:59:34PM -0700, Matt Kraai wrote: On Tue, Jul 08, 2003 at 02:24:25PM +1000, Ben Finney wrote: The packages page at http://www.debian.org/distrib/packages currently says: = Non-US/Main and Non-US/Non-Free These packages cannot be exported from the

Re: GFDL and man pages

2003-07-14 Thread Adam Warner
On Tue, 2003-07-15 at 12:02, Walter Landry wrote: This is a summary of what you have to do. The detailed requirements are in section 4 of the GFDL. Note that this all has to be _in_ the manpage. This may or may not make the manpage useless. You also have to include the Transparent version

Re: GFDL and man pages

2003-07-14 Thread Nathanael Nerode
snipped explanation of why GFDL is not good for manpages In other words, you're better off writing your own manpage from scratch. It's probably OK to look at the manual to help figure out what various options do, as long as you then put the manual away and write the manpage entirely in your own