On 08/04/11 07:20, Jim Meyering wrote: >> I'm not sure if we talked about this before, but a manual which would >> > be dual licensed GPL + (GFDL with front-cover and back-cover) would >> > solve the issue completely for us. If this is still possible, that >> > would be great. > I don't know the status/details of this. > Paul, have you looked at it?
The GNU coding standards encourage the use of the GFDL for nontrivial manuals such as the diff manual <http://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain/html_node/License-Notices-for-Documentation.html>. I don't know about any GNU policy for dual-licensing. Unless there's good precedent for that, I'd be inclined to stick with the GFDL. The GNU Press used to print a diff manual, but it currently does not seem to do that <http://www.fsf.org/campaigns/gnu-press/books/manuals>, which means that we should make this change: --- a/doc/diffutils.texi +++ b/doc/diffutils.texi @@ -27,8 +27,7 @@ license is included in the section entitled ``GNU Free Documentation License.'' (a) The FSF's Back-Cover Text is: ``You have the freedom to -copy and modify this GNU manual. Buying copies from the FSF -supports it in developing GNU and promoting software freedom.'' +copy and modify this GNU manual.'' @end quotation @end copying Would this be enough to address the Debian project's concerns? (Sorry, I don't know what they are.)
