Re: [3.2/3.3/HEAD] Make all the manuals unambiguously DFSG free

["Joseph S. Myers" <jsm28 at cam dot ac dot uk>]

On Thu, 23 Jan 2003, Richard Kenner wrote:

> You cannot make that change because you are changing the terms of a copyright
> held by the FSF.  Only the FSF can legally make such a change.

Must explicit FSF approval also be given for fixing _defective_ licence
applications?  Some of the Ada manuals do not apply the GFDL in the proper 
GNU way; rather than using the standard GNU texts, they specify the manual 
title as a Front-Cover Text (when the GFDL requires the title on the front 
cover anyway) and the GFDL as an Invariant Section (when it is invariant 
anyway and does not need to be explicitly listed as such).

When new files (covered by an assignment) are added, may they in all cases
be added under the standard FSF terms (as described at
<http://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain_9.html>) without explicit approval?  
What about other cases - may a file that will form part of libgcc be added
with the libgcc exception without explicit approval?  If an author wishes
to use the GFDL for a new manual without Cover Texts, may they?  What
about the old permissive licence for manuals (still used for
cppinternals.texi)?

Must explicit FSF approval be given to add copyright and licence notices
to files missing them?  (For example, the FSF says that any file than ten
lines long, including such files as ChangeLogs, should have such notices -
a simple permissive licence being appropriate for rough documentation such
as ChangeLogs.)  Must it be given to add the libgcc exception to a libgcc
file wrongly lacking it?  Must it be given to copy code from a non-libgcc
file into libgcc?

-- 
Joseph S. Myers
jsm28@cam.ac.uk