Matthias Klose wrote:
``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).
Yes, a dual license would help.
So I suggest the following change. Note, this is just a draft yet. If it's sufficient for you, we need the agreement of all recent (i.e., since the change from LGPL to FDL) contributors to the documentation. I'd have to check, but that's at least Peter N Lewis, Mirsad Todorovac, Eike and me.
If that's done, just set DEBIANLY_CORRECT. (In addition, you might want to remove gnu.texi and remove its reference from the Makefile, if you also have to omit it in source distributions.)
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).
maybe not the GPC documentation, I never added all the documentation under the FDL and compared it to the complete documentation.
: 1. [...] The "Document", below, refers to any such manual or work.
(And not the entirety of several such works.)
: 7. [...] if the Document is less than one quarter of the entire : aggregate [...]
So AFAIUI, a single package would have to be 1/4.
Frank