manpage license trouble (was: Re: [patch+doc] New gdbinit.5 man page)

[Samuel Bronson]

[TL;DR: Debian can't include the GDB manpages now, and maybe nobody else
is even legally allowed to ship them, either. Also none of these
manpages include a copy of the GFDL like the GFDL says they must?]

Jan Kratochvil <jan.kratochvil@redhat.com> writes:

> Hi Eli,
>
> the primary goal is to add a new infrastructure so that man pages can be
> generated from gdb.texinfo, like src/binutils/doc/ does.
>
> Later I would like to convert current nroff src/gdb/gdb.1 also into
> gdb.texinfo and also convert pending gdb_gcore.pod patch that way:
> 	[patch] gdb_gcore man/help/install [+doc] #2
> 	http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2011-12/msg00157.html
> 	Message-ID: <20111206002555.GA12329@host2.jankratochvil.net>
>
> It adds gdbinit.5 as a proof of concept as I had to write it anyway now.
> I did not want to duplicate much the gdb.info content so this man page is
> mostly just about references into the info document.
>
> I have not developed any of the Makefile rules myself, it is just a port
> + simplification of the scripts and texinfo usage from src/binutils/doc/ .
> Particularly the parts of Makefile.in generated from Makefile.am .

[...]

Sorry to chime in so late, but:

There is an important difference between binutils.texi and gdb.texinfo
when it comes to generating manpages from them: their licenses.

binutils.texi has this:

--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
@copying
@c man begin COPYRIGHT
Copyright @copyright{} 1991-2014 Free Software Foundation, Inc.

Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document
under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.3
or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation;
with no Invariant Sections, with no Front-Cover Texts, and with no
Back-Cover Texts.  A copy of the license is included in the
section entitled ``GNU Free Documentation License''.

@c man end
@end copying
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---

but gdb.texinfo has this:

--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
@copying
@c man begin COPYRIGHT
Copyright @copyright{} 1988-2014 Free Software Foundation, Inc.

Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document
under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.3 or
any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with the
Invariant Sections being ``Free Software'' and ``Free Software Needs
Free Documentation'', with the Front-Cover Texts being ``A GNU Manual,''
and with the Back-Cover Texts as in (a) below.

(a) The FSF's Back-Cover Text is: ``You are free to copy and modify
this GNU Manual.  Buying copies from GNU Press supports the FSF in
developing GNU and promoting software freedom.''
@c man end
@end copying
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---

This makes a difference for Debian because of
<https://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_001#outcome>, where it was
decided that Debian would only consider GFDL'd works free if there are
no "Cover Texts" or "Invariant Sections".  (They don't approve of people
being required to retain RMS' political statements in forked versions of
manuals, and consider the cover texts to be an even worse version of the
advertising clauses they had thought were on the way out.)

(Obviously Debian already stopped shipping GDB's manual(s) proper long
ago; they are now relegated to "non-free", which is not actually part of
Debian despite using much of the same infrastructure.  Which is kind of
annoying for those of us who maintain the packaging, but I guess that's
what happens when radical projects collide ...)

This makes a difference for other redistributors (say, Redhat) because
the Invariant Sections are not in fact present in the manpages, which
would seem to make it difficult to fulfill item 4.L of GFDL-1.3:

> L. Preserve all the Invariant Sections of the Document,
>    unaltered in their text and in their titles.  Section numbers
>    or the equivalent are not considered part of the section titles.

[Binutils folks, start reading here:]
Both Binutils and GDB seem to run afoul of item 4.H wrt manpages:

> H. Include an unaltered copy of this License.

Binutils' manpages even claim (incorrectly) that it *is* included.

GCC appears to deal with this by shipping the gfdl separately in gfdl(7)
(because nobody actually wants the GFDL in a manpage), but we obviously
can't just do the same thing here without some pain: multiple packages
aren't normally permitted to ship the same file.

The way *I* read (info "(maintain)License Notices for Other Files"), it
should be possible to put each of GDB's manpages (individually) under
the all-permissive notice given there: they are each below 300 lines
when formattted on an 80-column terminal (which seems the most relevant
way to count it).

This would eliminate any headaches related to trying to interpret the
GFDL with respect to non-book works.

-- 
Hi! I'm a .signature virus! Copy me into your ~/.signature to help me spread!