Matthias Klose wrote:
Peter N Lewis writes:
But the issue Matthias is interested in is the freeness of lack thereof of the FDL and whether it's an issue for the GPC documentation with regards to Debian usage. that's not an issue I can answer, hopefully others know the answer.
well, the original question was, which "invariant section" statement the GPC manual pages have.
It doesn't have any, and Eike will clarify this in the future.
So the man page isn't a big problem. But the GPC manual seems to be IIUYC. It currently has the following invariant sections:
``GNU General Public License'', ``GNU Lesser General Public License'', ``GNU Free Documentation License'',
As Eike mentioned, these licenses are invariant by definition. So is it a problem for Debian to include them as invariant sections? (If so, we could probably leave them out from the list of invariant sections, which wouldn't in fact make any difference, since these licenses by itself disallow their modification.)
``The GNU Project'', ``The GNU Manifesto'' and ``Funding Free Software'',
I guess these are the problematic ones, right? If so, would it help if we "dual-license" the manual with and without them? I.e., you can use the manual as before, or you can completely omit these sections (which Debian could then do).
another issue are the "Front-Cover Texts" and the "Back-Cover Texts".
There are no Back-Cover Texts. The Front-Cover Text is just ``The GNU Pascal Manual''.
I've never seen these texts from GPC in, i.e. a GNU/Linux distribution, so this is not only Debian related ...
I've never seen a GNU/Linux distribution in which the GPC documentation accounts for a quarter or more (paragraph 7, FDL).
Frank