If we say "look yourself in each individual file", how can the
user trust gnulib?
I agree that an overall statement of what licenses gnulib uses is
desirable, including for the doc files. It's only that I think the
documentation should document the licenses, and (must) not *be* the
licenses, which is how it was reading to me. In which case there is no
particular need to give license-like wording, in fact it would be
confusing to do so.
I therefore think it's better to align the licenses of the files in
the doc/ directory, like we did for the m4/ directory.
"Align"? I was under the impression that all the licenses on the doc
files were the same, but I haven't systematically checked.
"invariant sections" in Debian speak is the same as "Invariant Sections
+ Front-Cover Texts + Back-Cover Texts" in GFDL speak.
I'd prefer to avoid ambiguities here...
Agreed, so how about:
Documentation files are released under the GFDL, with no Invariant
Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts.
