On Sun, Jan 22, 2006 at 09:58:58AM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: > Holger Levsen wrote: > > > Hm, on a second thought this (*) _might_ be a feature: the GFDL says > > invariant > > sections need to be listed, but there aren't any, as a template has been > > used. Yay ?! > > I suspect that many of those cases might just be an accidental ommission > in the copyright file... > > OTOH, it is hillarious that after typing 'info gdb' I was unable to > actually find the statement saying the documentation is under the GFDL; > it appears that the FSF has once again mis-applied their own license...
Incorrect. I clarified this with the GDB documentation expert; for some reason the license is in the Info file (you can find it with a text editor) but deliberately does not show up in an Info browser. Which makes fair sense; normally the license is in the source code, not in the binary. http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb/2005-12/msg00126.html -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
