Re: proposal for fdl module

[Simon Josefsson]

Eric Blake <address@hidden> writes:

> According to Simon Josefsson on 7/11/2006 2:49 AM:
>> Eric Blake <address@hidden> writes:
>> 
>>> In the m4 project, I wanted to update the documentation to include
>>> the FDL in an appendix.  gnulib contains doc/fdl.texi, but did not
>>> have any easy way to import it over to m4.  Would this patch be
>>> acceptable to allow documentation to be pulled in as separate
>>> modules?
>> 
>> I tried to apply the patch, but it seems it was line-wrapped.  Could
>> you send it again?  I think we should install it, I use fdl in most of
>> my packages, and synching it from gnulib seems like a good thing.
>
> I went ahead and applied it, instead.  Besides, Gary Vaughan submitted a
> patch to m4 that wants doc/regexprops-generic.texi available as well as
> fdl.texi, so it looks like documentation modules will be useful.

Great!

> My only question is what license should I mark the fdl module as?  For
> now, I went with public domain - fdl.texi contains a disclaimer that it
> can only be used without modification, but the text of the license is
> certainly not GPL'd, and you can use the FDL on public domain projects.
> Or maybe it is time to add another license category for documentation?

How about 'self-describing' as the License: field?

It is a bit problematic to have the modules file License: field be
normative in some cases (for LGPL modules) and non-normative, or even
incorrect, for other modules (if you put the GFDL as 'public domain'),
but I don't have a good solution.

/Simon