[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Karl Berry) writes: > rms said fine, so I installed the patches to the license Texinfo files > (slightly tweaked) in both gnulib and the (purported) original location, > gnu.org/licenses.
Thanks for talking to RMS and fixing this! Comparing what was install in gnulib with the patch I posted earlier, I notice: --- ../gsasl/doc/gpl.texi 2006-09-13 10:53:43.000000000 +0200 +++ doc/gpl.texi 2006-09-18 10:39:58.000000000 +0200 @@ -1,7 +1,6 @@ [EMAIL PROTECTED] GNU GPL [EMAIL PROTECTED] GNU General Public License [EMAIL PROTECTED] Copying [EMAIL PROTECTED] GNU General Public License @cindex GPL, GNU General Public License [EMAIL PROTECTED] License, GNU GPL @center Version 2, June 1991 I think two things are missing here: @unnumbered -> @appendixsec. Both fdl.texi and lgpl.texi uses @appendixsec, and it would be nice if gpl.texi did too. Was there any particular reason you didn't include this change? The new @cindex was proposed (IIRC) by Bruno, I think it is useful. It is not an important issue, but was there any particular reason this wasn't included? The lgpl.texi file has the second issue too: --- ../libidn/doc/lgpl.texi 2006-09-12 17:39:08.000000000 +0200 +++ doc/lgpl.texi 2006-09-18 10:39:58.000000000 +0200 @@ -1,12 +1,11 @@ @node GNU LGPL @appendixsec GNU Lesser General Public License @cindex LGPL, GNU Lesser General Public License [EMAIL PROTECTED] License, GNU LGPL @center Version 2.1, February 1999 > Simon (or anyone), if you want to make a gnulib-gpl.texi or whatever to > change the node name "Copying", feel free. I think --local-dir together with a context diff is a better solution for me. I'd agree that having two versions around is bad. /Simon
