Re: 'fdl' vs. 'fdl-1.3': difference and/or redundant?

[Bernhard Voelker]

On 2020-07-31 00:04, Bruno Haible wrote:
> Bernhard Voelker wrote:
>> But once this would be fixed, then the whole 'fdl' module (or the 'fdl-1.3'
>> module?) seems to be redundant, doesn't it?
>> Couldn't we remove one of them?
> 
> The idea of the 'fdl' module is to point to the current version of the GFDL.

okay, that means the URL bug should get fixed, right?
Patch attached.

> A maintainer who does not want to be surprised by a silent license change
> will pick the module with the explicit version number.
> 
> There is now a notice in the module description
>   "Don't use this module! Instead, copy the referenced license file into
>    your version control repository."
> [...]

That warning is exactly from where I'm coming from ... ;-)

But I thought the discussion was about that each project has to
have all license files as physical copy in its version control,
which means it should not copy it at bootstrap time from gnulib
into the working tree.  It should be there after cloning a project.

Still, it's good to have it in gnulib, so that projects can
simply 'cp gnulib/doc/fdl.texi doc/fdl.texi' once there would
be an update in central gnulib.

Have a nice day,
Berny

0001-fdl-fix-URL-to-GNU-licenses-page.patch
Description: Text Data