Karl Berry wrote:
> + @item doc/
> + Documentation files are under this copyright:
> +
> + @quotation
> + Copyright @copyright{} 2002-2007 Free Software Foundation, [EMAIL
> PROTECTED]
>
> I think it would be better not to state the exact license of the doc
> files here, but rather give general information, because they have their
> own copyright notices.
Hmm. But a gnulib-tool user wants to trust gnulib. Part of this trust
is to know what licenses the copied files carry.
gnulib-tool can at each invocation add new files to the user's project.
Sure it prints the file names of the new files, but noone is really
looking at the contents that the new gnulib-tool invocation has brought
in. If we say "look yourself in each individual file", how can the
user trust gnulib?
I therefore think it's better to align the licenses of the files in
the doc/ directory, like we did for the m4/ directory.
> The years cannot be generalized, for one thing.
OK, I'm writing 200X-200Y instead, similar to what the GPL itself does.
> Documentation files are released under the GFDL, without invariant
> sections; each doc file has its own copyright statement.
"invariant sections" is - as far as I understood - an ambiguous term:
"invariant sections" in Debian speak is the same as "Invariant Sections
+ Front-Cover Texts + Back-Cover Texts" in GFDL speak. I'd prefer
to avoid ambiguities here...
Bruno
