Re: test modules and license

[Karl Berry]

    If we say "look yourself in each individual file", how can the
    user trust gnulib?

I agree that an overall statement of what licenses gnulib uses is
desirable, including for the doc files.  It's only that I think the
documentation should document the licenses, and (must) not *be* the
licenses, which is how it was reading to me.  In which case there is no
particular need to give license-like wording, in fact it would be
confusing to do so.

    I therefore think it's better to align the licenses of the files in
    the doc/ directory, like we did for the m4/ directory.

"Align"?  I was under the impression that all the licenses on the doc
files were the same, but I haven't systematically checked.

    "invariant sections" in Debian speak is the same as "Invariant Sections
    + Front-Cover Texts + Back-Cover Texts" in GFDL speak. 
    I'd prefer to avoid ambiguities here...

Agreed, so how about:

 Documentation files are released under the GFDL, with no Invariant
 Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts.