License questions for Emacs doc files

License questions for Emacs doc files

[Glenn Morris]

Some license-related questions for files in the Emacs doc/ directory:


i) doc/emacs/gnu.texi is the GNU Manifesto, which is an invariant
section of the Emacs manual. Yet at the start of gnu.texi, there is a
standard GFDL license notice, which says there are no invariant
sections! This is weird, isn't it? Shouldn't gnu.texi just say "say
file emacs.texi for copying conditions", or perhaps have a verbatim
license like etc/GNU?


ii) doc/emac/misc/mh-e.texi is dual licensed under GPLv3+ and GFDL 1.2
(with no invariants and no cover text). Is that OK?


iii) Should all the doc/emac/misc/*.texi files be standardized in
terms of their Invariant and Cover text sections? Most of them have no
Invariant, front cover "a GNU Manual", and back cover "You have the
freedom to copy and modify...". Some of them are missing the cover
texts - should these be added?


Thanks.

Re: License questions for Emacs doc files

[Stefan Monnier]

> i) doc/emacs/gnu.texi is the GNU Manifesto, which is an invariant
> section of the Emacs manual. Yet at the start of gnu.texi, there is a
> standard GFDL license notice, which says there are no invariant
> sections! This is weird, isn't it? Shouldn't gnu.texi just say "see
> file emacs.texi for copying conditions", or perhaps have a verbatim
> license like etc/GNU?

Look odd, indeed.  Could someone figure out what's the right thing to
do here.

> ii) doc/emac/misc/mh-e.texi is dual licensed under GPLv3+ and GFDL 1.2
> (with no invariants and no cover text). Is that OK?

That's perfectly fine by me.

> iii) Should all the doc/emac/misc/*.texi files be standardized in
> terms of their Invariant and Cover text sections? Most of them have no
> Invariant, front cover "a GNU Manual", and back cover "You have the
> freedom to copy and modify...". Some of them are missing the cover
> texts - should these be added?

Some consistency would be good, yes.  But if the manual (and the
corresponding package) is also distributed separately, they may prefer
a slightly different arrangement and it's good to stick to it in
that case.


        Stefan

Re: License questions for Emacs doc files

[Richard M Stallman]

    i) doc/emacs/gnu.texi is the GNU Manifesto, which is an invariant
    section of the Emacs manual. Yet at the start of gnu.texi, there is a
    standard GFDL license notice, which says there are no invariant
    sections! This is weird, isn't it? Shouldn't gnu.texi just say "say
    file emacs.texi for copying conditions", or perhaps have a verbatim
    license like etc/GNU?

That certainly is incorrect.  Please put just a verbatim copying
license on that file.

    ii) doc/emac/misc/mh-e.texi is dual licensed under GPLv3+ and GFDL 1.2
    (with no invariants and no cover text). Is that OK?

No, it should be GFDL only.

    iii) Should all the doc/emac/misc/*.texi files be standardized in
    terms of their Invariant and Cover text sections? Most of them have no
    Invariant, front cover "a GNU Manual", and back cover "You have the
    freedom to copy and modify...". Some of them are missing the cover
    texts - should these be added?

Yes, please do that.