[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [AUCTeX-devel] 11.84

From: David Kastrup
Subject: Re: [AUCTeX-devel] 11.84
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2006 02:34:12 +0200
User-agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.50 (gnu/linux)

David Kastrup <address@hidden> writes:

> Other stuff that remains to be done is applying the GNU FDL to the
> documentation.  Weirdly enough, all the existing fdl.texi templates
> still have the old FSF address.  I am currently communicating with
> RMS in order to get that sorted out.


> I am also trying to get a hang about how to deal with GNU maintainer
> guidelines and DFSG.  I'll have to decide this more or less on my
> own according to how I interpret the guidelines, and it may or may
> not result in the AUCTeX manuals ending up in Debian nonfree instead
> of main, depending on whether the Debian maintainers choose to judge
> the standard GNU front and back cover texts (short blurbs) as
> constituting non-freedom.  Personally, I consider the few words
> nothing worth of calling nonfree (since they basically affect only
> mass printed copies, something which is not even possible with the
> "free" labelled GPL, and contain basically pretty much nothing that
> would not also be in the copyright notice and/or license text, which
> is unremovable by law, anyway).

At the current point of time, I used the boilerplate text in the GNU
maintainer guidelines.  After reading back and forth over them, I have
come to the conclusion that it does not seem like omitting front and
back cover texts would see like an option considered for the
maintainer.  I thought differently before.  I consider that pretty
annoying (given the current DFSG situation which would have ruled the
documentation "free" if without both invariant sections and cover
texts), and I have asked RMS whether it would be possible to do
without those.  It will probably take a few days until he decides
either which way.

I nevertheless checked in the current state so that people can already
check out whether the manual formats well and consistently for them.

I also have made the versioning in the manual be generated
automatically via an external file version.texi.  The example code
relies on automake generating this file automatically: as we don't use
automake, I do it via configure.  As a result, I don't know whether
the format of the information is identical with that generated by

I also tried fixing the wrong GhostScript executable name on Windows
for GhostScript.  cygwin is likely still not unproblematic.

David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]