the title "Copying" of gpl.texi makes no sense
I agree, but I don't think we should change the node name in the
canonical gpl.texi. So many manuals already use "Copying".
The other title "Library Copying" is nonsense as well, since
RMS doesn't recomment the LGPL for libraries.
Good
Furthermore lgpl.texi creates an entry in the index, but gpl.texi doesn't.
Also when you have a package partially under GPL, partially under LGPL,
and partially under FDL, the title "Copying" of gpl.texi makes no sense
any more. The other title "Library Copying" is nonsense as well, since
RMS does
Simon Josefsson wrote:
> --- gpl.texi 16 Jun 2006 17:35:17 +0200 1.4
> +++ gpl.texi 04 Sep 2006 17:39:43 +0200
> @@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
> @node Copying
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] GNU General Public License
> @center Version 2, June 1991
>
> @c This
