Re: doc license section

[Carl Witty]

On Wed, 2004-01-21 at 13:56, Marius Vollmer wrote:
> Kevin Ryde <address@hidden> writes:
> 
> > Might be worth thinking about GFDL for the manuals, while on the
> > subject of licenses.
> 
> Yes, indeed.  Maintain.texi says: "Manuals should use the GNU Free
> Documentation License".

Be aware that the feeling on the debian-legal mailing list is that the
GFDL is not sufficiently free for materials in Debian (for a number of
reasons which I personally find compelling).  See
http://people.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/Position_Statement.xhtml for more
information (or read the debian-legal archives).  It is likely that
GFDL-licensed materials will be removed from Debian after the next
Debian release.

(Marius: my e-mail message that mentioned "double-checked locking"
bounced from your ping.de address:
   (reason: 553 direct mail from dialups not accepted here)
I think there's something wrong with the filtering there, because the
e-mail was sent from my corporate e-mail server, which is definitely not
a dialup.)

Carl Witty