Re: inetutils ChangeLog doc/Makefile.am doc/inetuti...

[Simon Josefsson]

"Alfred M. Szmidt" <address@hidden> writes:

>        doc/fdl.texi is removed below
>
>    If I'm understanding correctly, removing fdl.texi seems wrong to
>    me.  I'm supposing it's created dynamically from a copy in gnulib
>    or somewhere now?  But the license can't be updated merely by
>    changing that file.  The @copying block has to be updated also.  In
>    fact, the @copying block now says 1.2, but (I'm guessing) fdl.texi
>    v1.3 is what gets pulled in.
>
>    I think the right outcome is:
>    1) change 1.2 to 1.3 in @copying in inetutils.texi.
>
>    2) keep a copy of fdl[-1.3].texi in the repo.
>
>    3) in the event that the fdl is updated, both things need to be
>       updated.  I don't know of any plausible way to automate it, and
>       updates are so infrequent, it doesn't seem worth the effort.
>
> You raise good points and thank you for catching them, I am not sure
> what we should do.  coreutils for example doesn't include fdl.texi,
> and coreutils is generally our guideline when it comes to these
> things.
>
> Jim and co, what do you think?

After the patch I installed to inetutils [1], I think actually the only
problem is that the gnulib 'fdl' module is a moving target.  That
doesn't really work, as Karl explained, since the main manual needs to
be updated manually whenever there is a FDL version update in gnulib.

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 cc yet another list, bug-gnulib, to get this archived for the gnulib
context as well, in case we end up modifying gnulib.

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.

/Simon

[1] http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/commit-inetutils/2009-05/msg00001.html