Re: Patch to make generated manpages use GFDL

[Free Software Foundation <licensing at gnu dot org>]

I'm sorry for the slow response to this question - we have a huge backlog
of licensing questions.

I am confused about what you want to do here - can you explain the situation
from the beginning, so that I can understand what is being asked?


Gerald Pfeifer <pfeifer@dbai.tuwien.ac.at> wrote:
> 
> licensing@gnu.org, we haven't received any response to this for two
> months.
> 
> Can you please have a look?
> 
> Thanks,
> Gerald
> 
> On Thu, 7 Jun 2001, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> > [ licensing@gnu.org included ]
> >
> > On Thu, 7 Jun 2001, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> >> This patch makes the generated manpages go under the GFDL.  I've made
> >> the licence notices for them say "no Invariant Sections", since the
> >> sections that are invariant don't go in the manpages, and I've kept
> >> the Front Cover and Back Cover texts.  The notices refer to the GFDL
> >> section of the manual, though that section is only in the full manual,
> >> since that is what the generated binutils manpages do.
> >
> > licensing@gnu.org, can we make such changes as simply, from a legal point
> > of view?
> >
> > In general, what kind of license change (of this kind) can we make, and
> > how easily?
> >
> >> It passes "make info" and "make dvi" and regenerating the manpages.
> >> OK to commit to mainline and branch?
> >>
> >> 2001-06-07  Joseph S. Myers  <jsm28@cam.ac.uk>
> >>
> >> 	* doc/gcov.texi, doc/invoke.texi: Use the GFDL for the generated
> >> 	manpages.
> >> 	* doc/gcov.texi: Use @table @gcctabopt.
> >> 	* doc/gcov.1, doc/gcc.1: Regenerate.
> >
> > If licensing@gnu.org replies positively, this patch is fine on both
> > branches.


--
-David "Novalis" Turner,
Licensing Question Volunteer,
Free Software Foundation