[Trimmed down the CCs]
Simon Josefsson wrote:
> So in gnulib, I propose we deprecated 'fdl' and ask maintainers to
> depend directly on 'fdl-1.3' or whatever version they need. Thoughts?
I think gnulib supports all possible ways the maintainer prefers:
- If the maintainer wants always the newest fdl.texi, he uses the
'fdl' module or takes the 'fdl' module.
- If the maintainer wants always the newest version of a specific FDL
version (usually typographical corrections only), he can use
"gnulib-tool --copy-file doc/fdl-1.x.texi".
- If the maintainer wants a stable copy of a specific FDL version,
he can copy and commit it into his project.
If "gnulib-tool --copy-file" gets more used, we can remove the 'fdl'
module entirely.
> the only problem is that the gnulib 'fdl' module is a moving target.
People who don't like the moving target will not use the 'fdl' module.
That's not a reason to change anything in the 'fdl' module.
> Note that gnulib does not contain a 'gpl' or 'lgpl' module, only
> 'gpl-2.0', 'gpl-3.0', and 'lgpl-2.1'. (Although no lgpl-3.0..) So it
> seems the 'fdl' module is sub-optimal.
The situation with GPL and LGPL is different: A change in the license of
the code is a very careful decision. Whereas the FDL license version does
not matter for many developers. This explains the difference in module
structure.
Bruno
