The lack of cpio docs annoyed me, I found this bug and so started making a cpio-doc package.
However, on examining the situation I found that cpio's docs are licenced as GFDL with no invariant sections, and according to https://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses#Exception that is considered free after the 2006 vote. That would be good, because then I could stop making this package and we could just put the docs back. Is there some reason why cpio's info docs should still be considered non-free? The vote document says nothing about back-cover and front-cover texts, but cpio does have them: "the Front-Cover texts being `A GNU Manual'', and with the Back-Cover Texts as in (a) below. A copy of the license is included in the section entitled `GNU Free Documentation License''. (a) The FSF's Back-Cover Text is: `You have freedom to copy and modify this GNU Manual, like GNU software. Copies published by the Free Software Foundation raise funds for GNU development.'' " Is having a front/back-cover text sufficient to make a texinfo doc non-free? If so it should really say so in the vote or on that licensing-for-packagers' page. https://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses#Exception So my understanding of the situation is that in fact the cpio docs are sufficiently free, and should be shipped with this package, which is a simple matter of reverting the 695717-no-cpio.info.patch If not I have done a cpio-doc package that could be used (based on the tar-doc package). Is the maintainer interested in adopting that if it's needed (it seems silly to have different people doing cpio and cpio-doc uploads)? I'm happy to do an NMU of cpio with the info docs restored unless someone comes up with a good reason why not. Wookey -- Principal hats: Linaro, Debian, Wookware, ARM http://wookware.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
