Referring to upstream copyright statement from debian/copyright

I have a closely related question to the one posed in the thread started at http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2007/11/msg00214.html My package has a fairly complicated constellation of copyright holders and licenses, and upstream has been helpful and provided a comprehensive statement in their

Re: GCC's manpage refers to sections that aren't in the manpage

On 5/6/07, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Zack Weinberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > GCC's manpages are mechanically generated from its info files. We > asked the FSF how to apply the GFDL and were told that the *entire > collection of manpages* counted as the Work,

Re: GCC's manpage refers to sections that aren't in the manpage

MJ Ray wote: [The state of the GCC manpage] probably means that the GCC maintainers have misused the FDL by accident, similar to the GDB maintainers in the past. [...] please research whether the GCC maintainers know that using the FDL for a manpage has problems. Some GNU projects use info fil

Re: motion to take action on the unhappy GNU FDL issue

Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes: > I think it might well be productive to point to the assignment > contract, and insist that your content be removed. I pulled it out of my files and reread it; the FSF's side of the agreement is a lot weaker than I remembered. The actual text is FSF agrees that a

Re: motion to take action on the unhappy GNU FDL issue

Branden Robinson wrote: > Well, I've been too cowardly to raise this issue of late, but given that > the temperature of debian-legal has been taken a few times over the past > several months, and there seems to be a steady or growing feeling that > Invariant Sections are not something we can live w