On Tue, Apr 25, 2006 at 11:07:05PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Wed, Apr 26, 2006 at 01:34:56AM -0400, Justin Pryzby wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 25, 2006 at 10:33:17PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > > > severity 364847 normal > > > thanks > > > > On Wed, Apr 26, 2006 at 12:20:27AM -0400, Justin Pryzby wrote: > > > > Package: manpages-dev > > > > Version: 2.22-1 > > > > Severity: serious > > > > > I think this manpage crosses the line; it is "distributed under GPL", > > > > yet the content is copied nearly-verbatim from the glibc manual. > > > > > "The GNU C library lets you modify the behavior of..." *is* a copy, > > > > and the example code is pretty much a sized-down copy, too. > > > > > I make no claim but that this manpage should not be distributed as is > > > > with a "gpl" annotation. > > > > Works may be licensed under multiple licenses, perhaps released at > > > different > > > times in their history. Unless you have evidence that the contents of > > > manpages-dev got there by making a copy from the GFDLed manual, I don't > > > believe we should treat this as a serious license problem. > > .\" Heavily based on glibc documentation > > Which doesn't show that it was copied from the GFDLed manual. It's clear > that the GFDL manual and the manpages have a common ancestry, yes; but > earlier incarnations of FSF manuals were released under different licenses, > and it may be that both works share a common ancestry that permitted > derivative works under both licenses rather than one work being a derivative > of the other. glibc_2.2.5.orig.tar.gz, dated 25-Jan-2002, is under the gfdl.
Walter, could you comment on the derivation of the content of the malloc_hook.3 manpage? I'm of the impression that material was copied from the glibc documentation, although the header on the manpage indicates that it is gpl. Justin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
