Where is the other version?
Well, the canonical one is http://www.gnu.org/licenses.
I don't object, but I don't understand why it would be an improvement.
Because the node names would be different, hence the files are
different, hence they should have different names. Seems to me.
Gnulib's gpl.texi won't automatically end up in various projects.
I'm not so much worried about people using the "wrong" one for their
project, that's self-correcting, but that someone searching for
gpl.texi, or otherwise finding two files both named gpl.texi will wonder
why they are different, when they both come from canonical GNU locations.
In fact, I think gnulib-gpl.texi should have a comment explaining why
the node name is different and mentioning the existence of the original
gpl.texi, etc. (I can write it. :)
However, your suggestion seems to be a good compromise, right?
Well, I'm not sure that's for me to say :), but it's the way I'd like to
go barring vehement objections ...
If you update all places to sync with gnulib, you won't have to split
them apart again. :-)
But the node names are different. So it would break every existing
manual. Believe me, rms does not want to deal. (I don't plan to even
mention the existence of gnulib-gpl.texi to him, I see no reason he
would care.)
Cheers,
k
