David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> The manual would make claims that are absolutely false, and which >> the license prevents anyone from removing. > > You can easily say > > A GNU Manual > Converted to a Microsoft share. > > if you deem it necessary. And this requirement becomes active only on > mass printed copies, anyway.
Further, it seems that this situation is similar to the obnoxious advertising clause in the old BSD license, which is still used by several packages that are in main, e.g., OpenSSL: * 3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this * software must display the following acknowledgment: * "This product includes software developed by the OpenSSL Project * for use in the OpenSSL Toolkit. (http://www.openssl.org/)" That requirement seems quite similar to the requirement in the Gnus manual to print "A GNU Manual" on the cover of a printed book derived from the Gnus texinfo manual. I believe the license clause is annoying, but, as for OpenSSL, does not make it impossible to use the licensed material freely, and in particular, should not prevent including it in main. /Simon -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
