Where is @node Copying in the lispref?

Where is @node Copying in the lispref?

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

It's an invariant section.

I assume that its absence means that it is technically illegal to
redistribute the lispref.  "Hey guys, shut down ALL those mirrors NOW!"
:-þ

-- 
Institute of Policy and Planning Sciences     http://turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp
University of Tsukuba                    Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN
               Ask not how you can "do" free software business;
              ask what your business can "do for" free software.

Re: Where is @node Copying in the lispref?

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: "Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen@xemacs.org>
> Date: Sun, 04 May 2003 01:33:33 +0900
> 
> It's an invariant section.

It's called "GPL", so all references to "Copying" should be renamed.

Thanks for pointing this out.

Re: Where is @node Copying in the lispref?

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

>>>>> "Eli" == Eli Zaretskii <eliz@elta.co.il> writes:

    >> From: "Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen@xemacs.org> Date: Sun, 04
    >> May 2003 01:33:33 +0900
    >> 
    >> It's an invariant section.

    Eli> It's called "GPL", so all references to "Copying" should be
    Eli> renamed.

But it's not the GPL, is it?  The GPL is the license for Emacs itself,
but the lispref is now under the FDL according to the header material.


-- 
Institute of Policy and Planning Sciences     http://turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp
University of Tsukuba                    Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN
               Ask not how you can "do" free software business;
              ask what your business can "do for" free software.

Re: Where is @node Copying in the lispref?

[Richard Stallman]

    But it's not the GPL, is it?  The GPL is the license for Emacs itself,
    but the lispref is now under the FDL according to the header material.

Would you please lay out the facts of the problem, and why you think
it is a problem.  Your description was fragmentary, and I can't tell
if there is a real problem or not.  I am unable to follow the subsequent
discussion.

Re: Where is @node Copying in the lispref?

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

>>>>> "rms" == Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes:

    rms> Would you please lay out the facts of the problem, and why
    rms> you think it is a problem.  Your description was fragmentary,
    rms> and I can't tell if there is a real problem or not.  I am
    rms> unable to follow the subsequent discussion.

The file elisp.texi declares

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document
under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.1 or
any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with the
Invariant Sections being ``Copying'', with the Front-Cover texts being
``A GNU Manual'', and with the Back-Cover Texts as in (a) below.  A copy
of the license is included in the section entitled ``GNU Free
Documentation License''.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

The section "Copying" is referenced here as an invariant section, and
in several menus in vol1.texi and vol2.texi (perhaps they are
obsolete?), but does not exist in the Lispref in CVS head as far as I
could find (ie, 'fgrep Copying *.texi*').  I believe that this makes
all copying of the Lispref risky, even verbatim copying, as it appears
that the legally required section may be missing.  I suspect it makes
modified versions illegal.

My guess was that the invariant section needs to refer to the node
containing the FDL.  Either the node could be renamed to "Copying" or
the invariant section could be changed to "GNU Free Documentation
License".

Eli said that it's the GNU GPL that is the intended invariant section,
in which case the invariant section would be "GNU General Public
License".

Looking at the example of the Emacs manual (where "Copying" == the GPL,
"Distribution", and "The GNU Manifesto" are invariant), I guess that's
the likely possibility.


N.B. If vol1.texi and vol2.texi are obsolete, they should be removed,
I think.  Else they probably should be updated to correspond to the
menu in elisp.ref.  Furthermore, they appear to contain different
licensing terms for the lispref (namely, the GPL).


-- 
Institute of Policy and Planning Sciences     http://turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp
University of Tsukuba                    Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN
               Ask not how you can "do" free software business;
              ask what your business can "do for" free software.

Re: Where is @node Copying in the lispref?

[Richard Stallman]

Now I understand what the issue is, and I agree you have found a
problem.  I will correct the GFDL notice to specify the correct
section title.

Thanks.

    My guess was that the invariant section needs to refer to the node
    containing the FDL.

It is supposed to refer to the section containing the GPL.
There is no need to label the GFDL itself as an Invariant Section
because the GFDL does that specially.


    N.B. If vol1.texi and vol2.texi are obsolete, they should be removed,
    I think.  Else they probably should be updated to correspond to the
    menu in elisp.ref.  Furthermore, they appear to contain different
    licensing terms for the lispref (namely, the GPL).

I will mark them as obsolete.  Thanks.