[2018-12-13 07:10] Chris Lamb <la...@debian.org>
> Hi Dmitry,
>
> > > As I understand it, I don't believe this is a false-positive as it is
> > > missing "no bad sections".
> >
> > What is "bad sections"? In General Resolution [^1], they are not
> > mentioned.
>
> Sorry, I am not terribly knowledgable about this license; I am merely
> repeating what is stated elsewhere.
>
> If you can do some research into this I would be very happy to update
> the description for this tag in order to educate others. :)
Neither I am lawer.
But according to current description of
`license-problem-gfdl-invariants' tag and discussions I had what I
packaged GNU Complexity a while ago, current consensus is that GFDL-1.2+
is fine, as long there is no
+ invariant sections
+ invariant back cover text
+ invariant front cover text
cflow=1.4 had invariant front cover with text "GNU manual", so it was
considered non-dfsg, but cflow=1.5 removed this front cover clause.
Actually, taking look at source code, I found problem:
Lintian expects(cruft.pm:1379) matches first, but not second:
with no invariant sections, no Front-Cover and no Back-Cover texts
with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover and Back-Cover texts
Wording in cflow manual miss second `no' word. I believe regex in
Lintian could be relaxed a bit.
